distinction*

I consider rights to be a subset of ethics

sure

but I don't understand the distinction between morals and ethics

Not important rn anyways

k

If ethics are capable of being superior under certain contexts

Then under certain contexts there can eventually be "best" set of ethics

theoretically

Since the "pool" of ethics is not infinite

Then

There can be a "best" system of ethics under larger contexts as well, one that may be more or less complex

Eventually

It could be very complex, or very simple

(I don;t even think the "in a certain context" is necessary, but sure)

You can find a system of ethics that is the best *universally*

Theoretically speaking

sure

your point?

Which would imply that there exist rights that are best to go by

To enforce upon the state that best system

(I mean, assuming you even know how to value your rules as giving good or bad outcomes. This value system would certainly be the moral system you are operating on, not the practical rules ur applying to achieve it...)

In other words

all ur doing

is saying I am God in this

which is fine (I guess)

but pls assume it

I at least dismiss total moral relativism as a valid concept

And no

you're doing the supremacy of will shtick

I admit my ability to judge and observe is limited

But

We hold the beliefs we do because we think they are the best we can think of

Else we wouldnt hold them

doubtful

Or we'd just be acting totally irrationally

we act to satisfy our limbic system

Where is that old Aristotle quote?

rationality is almost always dismissed if it does not comply with this prerogative

The one that says something like "hypocrite you are"

idk