> The fact that we disagree on exactly what constitutes human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, The Four Freedoms, etc.) is not an argument against their existence but rather an indication that our understanding is still incomplete, not unlike the evolution of physics which has seen the addition of relativistic and quantum physical to classical physics.
So what's the analog of the experimental method here, i.e., the procedure for determining which of the parties to the dispute is correct?
Unfortunately, we're talking experiments with nations and individuals so you're looking at historical analysis rather than experimentation. This is one argument for giving the individual US states more rights. If states can tweak the rules, then over time we can see which are preferred by citizens or the most successful economically and therefore which rules/laws/norms are the most successful.
> The fact that we disagree on exactly what constitutes human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, The Four Freedoms, etc.) is not an argument against their existence but rather an indication that our understanding is still incomplete, not unlike the evolution of physics which has seen the addition of relativistic and quantum physical to classical physics.
So what's the analog of the experimental method here, i.e., the procedure for determining which of the parties to the dispute is correct?
Unfortunately, we're talking experiments with nations and individuals so you're looking at historical analysis rather than experimentation. This is one argument for giving the individual US states more rights. If states can tweak the rules, then over time we can see which are preferred by citizens or the most successful economically and therefore which rules/laws/norms are the most successful.