prateek176
Argument:
Some philosophers - there exist certain human or natural rights that belong to all human beings by virtue of their humanity.
Another theory - But the rights accorded a person vary from society to society and even within a society over time.
Since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights.
The other theory negates the theory of some philosophers by saying that since there is no right that is universally protected, there are no natural rights. Just because the rights are not protected, it does not mean that the rights are not there. It is an assumption made by the other theory supporters that if there are natural rights, all societies would protect them.
Question: A defender of the theory that natural rights do exist might respond to this objection by arguing that ...
Choice (E) gives us the logic we discussed above. Hence it is correct.
(B) some human rights are natural while others derive from a source such as a constitution
This statement might be true but it is not relevant to our argument. We are only concerned about whether natural rights exist. Constitutional rights are not a matter of concern at all. We need to give a response to the objection raised by the other theory. (B) does not respond to it. We need something more in line with "the constitution may not safeguard natural rights even though they may exist"