The confusion is, law does not have to be objective. Law can be and is often, subjective. If we only had objectives law, based on something like science, then we could define human rights based on something anyone could infer, deduce and derive. But once you add subjectivity, then it comes down to lawyers playing word games with nobody able to agree.
In an objective sense, humans rights would be things that all people have the option to pursue, but with the actions of this pursuit not violating the objective rights of others. Once your actions they violate others, the objectivity breaks down and subjectivity is added, making this a violation of human rights.
For example, the pursuit of happiness is a right in the US Constitution. We all have the right to pursue that which makes us happy. However, if this pursuit violates others; redistribution of wealth by force, some people's rights are bring violated, so this is not the objective way to this human rights.
An objective way will require each person pursue their happiness within their means. They need to be self sufficient so nobody is losing anything when they pursue their own happiness. If you need more resources to pursue the next level of happiness, then you need to work harder, which also does not harm anyone. The criminal who wishes extra happiness and steals to provide for himself, causes harms to others, taking away their rights; the subjective laws of criminals. To be objective, of oneself, there can be no victims as you pursue you own happiness.
Humans rights allow for the right to make choices, but it does not guarantee equal results. We are not all the same, with all the same abilities and needs. We all need to accept, who we are, and work within these objective constraints to find our plain of happiness. The analogy is sports. In sports, all the players are required to play by the same set of rules no matter you ability. The pursuit of excellence will leads to different outcomes for each player. Some will be hall of famers and others will sit on the bench. In each context, one needs to find the silver lining instead of the dark cloud. Jealousy and cause problem since it will add subjectivity; blame others.
If we try to force a subjective scam, like all players need to score the same number of points each game, even though the team talent is not uniform, this will violate humans rights since this is not objectively possible, except on the very odd day when every dog has its day. Not being able to score as much, as the star player, is natural and is based on objective criteria; different talent and drive levels. As long as each does their best, the result is objective. If some players are required to dumb down their ability, subjectivity is added and their human rights are violated; emotional appeal or not.
Reverse discrimination violated human rights, since it did not account for the objective differences in people. Instead is used emotional appeal and guilt to favor one set of subjective needs, at the expense of the objective rights of others. Sports is a useful example, since it shows how objective human rights work. The objective range of talents common, to humans, will lead to different outcomes, but with each happy with their unique contribution to the whole, if they do their best. There is nothing that stops them from the outside. Limitations are all from the inside; jealousy, doubt and fear.
Human rights allows all of us to play any "sports/right" we choose, with nobody forbidden. But we all need to know ourselves and our talents and our limitations so we do not try to force others to pay for some extra prothesis, since this will add subjectivity and create unnatural results.
In sports, men and women often play in different leagues. This is due to the objective criteria of men being larger and more muscular giving them an advantage in most sports. The two leagues approach of male and female is very useful, since it allows men and women to both play at their best; similar talent levels, so more people can achieve happy results. To force all to play together, leads to less than total satisfaction, especially in the women, thereby justifying subjective games and emotional appeal, that can only be met by violating the rights of others.
The Political Left is the worse at violating human rights via emotional manipulation. They confuse objective human rights with everyone getting equal results, so force, via law, is needed. Objectivity to the rights and talent so all is buried under the sentiment. The leaders benefit by the skim of tax payer money, as lawyers compound the subjective confusion.
