>Right are a completely arbitrary construction of organized society so it's strange to suggest there are any absolute rules that govern 'rights.'

Are you familiar with the United States Declaration of Independence [0]?

>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It seems to me that 'rights' could exist without an 'organized society'. But, so far, I don't think any 'organized societies' really recognize 'rights of a dead person' (chiefly, I think, because there is no longer a 'person' to have rights).

Do you know of a law that grants rights to dead persons?

[0] http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

Some states (Florida and California, I believe) have laws prohibiting release of photos of corpses -- granting the dead a limited right to privacy. Laws prohibiting the disturbance/mistreatment/abuse of corpses are common, but not universal.

I highly doubt California has such a law. It would not be constitutional[0] if it did:

>SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Also of interest to this thread is:

>SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

How does a dead person enjoy life and liberty? Acquire, possess, protect property?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...

Some of the provisions in health safety code prohibit disturbance of remains, except where specifically authorized. [1] There are other sections that require the written wishes of the deceased regarding the remains to be followed without undue delay if they are clear and properly funded.

Upon further looking, I can't find anything to back up my claim on photos. There have been various efforts to provide these from time to time, but it doesn't look like any of them resulted in passed laws, or case laws. There's some case law around heir's right to privacy with regard to photography of the deceased, but that doesn't seem well settled either.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...

I'm not sure if you are playing or just didn't read the law very carefully, but disturbance of remains is not prohibited by what you linked.

>wantonly disturbs

That's an interesting argument, but not one that I agree with. Rights exist without being granted. In an unorganized society, theoretically you have all possible rights. Society limits your rights, it doesn't grant them.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The outcome is the same as far as I can see. It's an interesting distinction to make, however.

It's important because you won't fight to preserve rights you don't think you possess, and there is no conflict if the government decides to take control of something if you don't have an acknowledged right to it given by the government.

Essentially, in the scenario where you only have the rights the government grants you, the default uncharted behavior is illegal or immoral. In a scenario where you have all the rights not limited by the government, you can do new things and have the right to engage in new behavior without fear.

ihsw2: there are well documented records of societies that cut the beating hearts out of children in ritual sacrifice, built towers or of skulls, etc.

It's not a dichotomy between absolutism and nilism - there are happy middle grounds.

Those uncivilized societies were rightfully left to the dustbin of history -- they embody the nihilism I am referring to.

But they had their rules too. Are you suggesting their rules were somehow "wrong"? Funny how the societies left to the dustbin of history are never the "right" ones. It's almost as if the survivors are the ones who choose who was wrong.

Yes, their rules were wrong. The survivors don't have to choose who was wrong - the wrong ones don't survive.

It's like when a people revolt against their government. This is wrong to do, unless they win; then it was always correct.

I think it's very hard to make a logical case for the equivalence between success and rightness, which you seem to be suggesting.

There are many people who succeeded in our time who are viewed by many rational people as being very wrong. Corrupt Russian oligarchs, policy-anulling health insurance bosses, Bitcoin thieves...

Having the power, or cunning, to get away with something doesn't make it right to do so!

Individually, when operating within a greater society that views your actions as wrong, then you are correct.

But as a society? Within its own framework? Sure it does. Another society can view it as wrong, and maybe they will go to war over it - what they used to call an 'appeal to God.' The ultimate winner is the right one.

Why do you think what's 'right' can change over time?

There are absolute rules that we should adhere to, to imply that they are a social construction is to embrace nihilism and anarchy.

There is a set of universal standards and expectations have existed for millennia in many forms. There has always been an implicit set of common rules -- common across all cultures and generations -- that we as a species live by. Implying that everything is a social construction mental laziness and a desecration of our fore-bearers at best and malicious destruction of the bonds of society at worst.

"A is true because bad things will happen if not" is not a valid argument.

To the specific point, I struggle to find any set of rules which is common across all cultures and generations; care to name a few?

"Don't urinate on your pillow."?

One is that empathy and self-control are the internal enforcers of the civilizing process. A lack of one or both is the sign of an uncivilized society or individual.

Another is that parents' authority over children is sacred, as well as the bonds of marriage and friendship.

Empathy and self-control are not rights. They may inform rights, but different cultures see those as creating very different rights.

parents' authority over children is sacred

That's completely false, many societies (ours included) have imposed restrictions on how parents can raise their children, and sometimes in quite extreme ways (e.g. the Agoge[1]). And the child protection services in our modern Western societies take away plenty of children.

The rights of parents over children are more like the authority of the king in the Little Price - absolute, as long as they only use it in certain ways.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge

These are very commonly recurring rules indeed, but that does not make them absolute nor are they universal.

> There are absolute rules that we should adhere to, to imply that they are a social construction is to embrace nihilism and anarchy.

One can embrace nihilism without acting it out. We all have a choice to make: we can choose to follow the rules of our society or to not follow them. A small number of people choose to not follow them, and the rest of us choose how to deal with them to preserve the society the majority of us prefer. It happens every day.

It's all a choice, we have our free will that allows us to act however we choose. In the absence of absolute rules we can create our own rules to follow.