The existence of general moral or objective morals.

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts. Bentham said. Still there is people who actually believe in handing out the notion of natural rights.

Is there any evidence of natural rights floating around out there? I havent seen them and there seems to be none. Can we proceed to the thought that rights, as in human rights or any kind of legal matters are creations of man to serve him?

Ayn Rand, for example, would not acknowledge the thought of rights being subjective, they are objective to her and follow from her axiom "the right to live". Well obviously nature hasnt read ayn rand cause people actually die. But this is not what rand meant with her objective rights, is it? No, cause rand doesnt make any difference between what is and what ought to be. Ought, is a extrapolation of the future. It follows from logical inducement that ought cannot be deduced from is. Which means that future cannot be foretold by what has already taken place, it doesnt follow logically, which means its not true.

We can then conclude that there are no such thing as objective rights, nor rand-rights or any other kind of rights.Formal logic states a difference between is and ought and if you dont follow this youre just plain stupid or ignorant.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong or am I right?

I believe Wallace advocates a social contract when saying "We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe."

Daniel Dennett gives perspective on the is-ought problem, arguing that although one cannot "rush from facts to values", nevertheless it is necessary to consider is-statements when attempting to derive an ought:

Ethics must somehow be based on an appreciation of human nature—on a sense of what a human being is or might be, and on what a human being might want to have or want to be. If that is naturalism, then naturalism is no fallacy. No one could seriously deny that ethics is responsive to such facts about human nature. We may just disagree about where to look for the most telling facts about human nature—in novels, in religious texts, in psychological experiments, in biological or anthropological innovations. The fallacy is not naturalism, but rather, any simple-minded attempt to rush from facts to values.
—Daniel Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea

I would agree with Dennett. But not only emphasize that one should not rush from facts to values, one cannot do it and call it "true". Moral is forever dreams and wishes.

» General Wisdom 1
» General Wisdom 2