It seems that the developments of civilization brought us close to notion, that human rights are most valuable set of rights for humans. I do not want to challenge this evaluation. But I have to ask a question: are there any rights that would overcome human rights?
Understanding rights from an evolutionary point of view, there is one right that should not be challenged: a right to “own”, to execute sovereignty over my own body (and mind), where my denotes any living body, so any pile of atoms that perform basic acts of our extended phenotype as a painting done by our hands and our imagination.
Those that do not appreciate property rights can not execute human rights.
Where does a confusion about human rights comes from? Like always: from a confusion in mind and in reasoning. We are prone to attribute rights to “humans” as if it was one human. When we say that each man should have his/her rights, this should be taken seriously. The problem arises when we shift this value of rights form a singular person to a collective entity of “humans” with no face, with no common values, with no common interests. When this occurs, we start to build collectivist, totalitarian thinking, since there is in fact no such entity that would have sovereignty over humans. We do have entities that are larger that one person only. But only in the case that you can find an eligible body and person that has a sovereignty over this body, it is eligible to discuss rights and obligations of this representative body (of a person). It is a Government of a State that is blamed or praised for conducting a war against another State, but not all people living in that state. In this case the “subject” of rights is traceable. In the case of “human rights” the subject of this rights and obligations is not traceable. That is why the goal should not be humanism but homonism, not rights in impersonal body of humans, but body of individual homo.