There is a sense of "right" that just means "freedom". These are sometimes called "liberty rights". — Pfhorrest

For example, there are people who say "I have a right to say/think whatever I like." There is no law stating that a person may say or think whatever they like. There may be no law prohibiting them from doing so, of course. — Ciceronianus the White

For my part, I believe the only rights we have are those recognized by the law, that is to say, legal rights. Certainly those are the only rights which are enforceable. Legal rights, though sometimes conceived of as possessory, in fact result from restrictions imposed particularly on governmental power. We have no right of free speech, for example, in the law. We have the First Amendment, though, which prohibits the government from restricting free speech. Legal rights therefore often exist purely because the law prohibits certain conduct by others. I can speak freely in the sense that the government is unable to prevent me from doing so. — Ciceronianus the White

In other words, we have the right to be wrong, bad, immoral as long as we don't infringe directly on the rights of others. This is an ethics which sanctions, if it doesn't actually encourage, the disregard of the suffering of others. — Ciceronianus the White

Seriously speaking, rights given, as much as they selfishly serve the self, if they are given in equal measures to a group of people, then theoretically the rights do not amount to any selfish advantage. — god must be atheist

Presumably, everyone has the "right to property." The problem is some people don't have any. — Ciceronianus the White

The right is used in justification of an essentially selfish position, though it is a right to which supposedly all are entitled. — Ciceronianus the White

cuz I think rights are bullocks. lol. Just so you know where I come from. — Moliere

I think legal rights--rights dependent on law--are the only rights. So, I think the "right to property" exists only to the extent recognized by law. But, I'm not addressing whether or not rights exist independent of the law (i.e., that there are rights with which we're endowed by God or nature or whatever).

I think the belief that such rights exist has its basis in self-interest and, Ayn Rand and others notwithstanding, think that self-interest is not a virtue, and isn't a basis on which moral conduct should be determined or judged. The fact that all are entitled to such rights makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. — Ciceronianus the White

But each of us also have the power to afford another a right, simply by affirming it and acting out the corresponding duty. — NOS4A2

Prior to the beginning of the play, brothers Eteocles and Polynices, leading opposite sides in Thebes' civil war, died fighting each other for the throne. Creon, the new ruler of Thebes and brother of the former Queen Jocasta, has decided that Eteocles will be honored and Polynices will be in public shame. The rebel brother's body will not be sanctified by holy rites and will lie unburied on the battlefield, prey for carrion animals like vultures, the harshest punishment at the time. Antigone and Ismene are the sisters of the dead Polynices and Eteocles. — wikipedia

In other words, we have the right to be wrong, bad, immoral as long as we don't infringe directly on the rights of others. This is an ethics which sanctions, if it doesn't actually encourage, the disregard of the suffering of others. — Ciceronianus the White

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of rights is that I think acceptance of them gives rise to an ethics in which good, or moral, conduct is defined as that conduct which doesn't interfere with them. Each person has the right to do certain things as long as they don't infringe on or violate the rights of others. Rights are deemed possessions we each have, to which we're entitled, and nobody may take or interfere with those possessions. As long as they don't their conduct isn't objectionable, and they're free to do whatever they like and refrain from doing whatever they don't want to do without censure. — Ciceronianus the White

“For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Laws — Cicero

How, for instance, were the Christian people to square the rampant inequality between rich and poor with the insistence of numerous Church Fathers that ‘the use of all things should be common to all’? The problem was one that, for decades, demanded the attention of the most distinguished scholars in Bologna. By 1200, half a century after the completion of the Decretum, a solution had finally been arrived at – and it was one fertile with implications for the future.

A starving pauper who stole from a rich man did so, according to a growing number of legal scholars, iure naturali – ‘in accordance with natural law’. As such, they argued, he could not be reckoned guilty of a crime. Instead, he was merely taking what was properly owed him. It was the wealthy miser, not the starving thief, who was the object of divine disapproval. Any bishop confronted by such a case, so canon lawyers concluded, had a duty to ensure that the wealthy pay their due of alms. Charity, no longer voluntary, was being rendered a legal obligation. That the rich had a duty to give to the poor was, of course, a principle as old as Christianity itself. What no one had thought to argue before, though, was a matching principle: that the poor had an entitlement to the necessities of life. It was – in a formulation increasingly deployed by canon lawyers – a human ‘right’.

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of rights is that I think acceptance of them gives rise to an ethics in which good, or moral, conduct is defined as that conduct which doesn't interfere with them. Each person has the right to do certain things as long as they don't infringe on or violate the rights of others. Rights are deemed possessions we each have, to which we're entitled, and nobody may take or interfere with those possessions. As long as they don't their conduct isn't objectionable, and they're free to do whatever they like and refrain from doing whatever they don't want to do without censure.

I'm not arguing against morality based on natural law. I'm questioning one based on claimed inherent rights. I think our concept of rights was unknown to ancient thinkers like Cicero and the Stoics and said as much in the OP. I remain a Ciceronian. — Ciceronianus the White

Presumably, everyone has the "right to property." The problem is some people don't have any. The right is used in justification of an essentially selfish position, though it is a right to which supposedly all are entitled. — Ciceronianus the White

Rightfully so in my opinion. To me, refusing to interfere in such a manner is good conduct, and defending their rights even better. Censure and objection are not infringements on another’s right, however. An infringement would be some sort of unjust reprisal, like imprisonment.

It is difficult to defend the rights of those who engage in objectionable conduct. But with practice it can be done and those who do so are moral and decent. — NOS4A2

You skipped my Greek example of our rights being well understood in ancient times. — Athena