My apologies for the lapse in the discussion, I have been traveling the last week.
I think the discussion, or my argument, ultimately rests on how we, or I, define good. There is no objective good and there is no objective evil. How the culture defines good or evil is based on the dominant or traditional societies norms. The norms are usually enforced passively by that societies collective acceptance of ideas and or behavior that does not violate the collective norms. Or the society responds with ostracism of those individuals who “push” or violate these invisible barriers.
Good and evil is subjective, and are generally the aggregated ideas of generations that came before ours.
I propose that the good should be defined as any action that resists death. Death, on an individual personal scale, and death on the collective national scale. We have two choices, that we have available to us, inherent in our physiology. Life or death. Live or die. Even then, it's all subjective. We will die, because it is our nature, so we can choose to live only for a short time. But, at the other end, it was not our decision to exist or not. So the limited time offer choice is life or die, die later or die now. I hold it that the good are the actions of the human beings who choose to live, even if ultimately the choice to live is irrelevant. Because ultimately we are irrelevant.
Now because life is natural, then, I can make a claim that the actions that support life are also natural. And if I define good as those actions that support life, then good it self becomes natural, a natural law. Since death itself is natural too, but opposite of life, than evil is, those actions that oppose life. Then evil, too, is a natural law. And here is your choice.
The problem then, simply arises out of the fact, that there are simply thousands of subjective interpretation of the natural law. The problem then, is even made more complex by those individuals, who, while defending their own natural law to life, but violate and take the life of others.
So, I then further make the claim, that men made law, that supports natural right (law) to life, then those laws are themselves natural, these laws are discoveries of the human nature. As all humans who live are alive, then the basic natural law (right), the law to live, and to take those actions that support ones live, are all natural. Being the requirement of life. The requirement of our physiology, our physiology is the result of nature, therefore, the actions that humans need to take in order to keep themselves alive are natural.
The rights that guarantee unimpeded actions to support ones life are then natural rights.