As it happens, I, like most philosophers except utilitarians, do not think any one system of ethics can give coherent answers in all situations. Sometimes it makes sense to consider the greater good, sometimes individual rights or individual lives are more important.
(The only system of ethics I can never quite get into is virtue ethics. This approach is, IMHO, nowhere near being capable of generating action-guiding principles.)
As a scientist, I would say that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that any rights exist. I can not observe or measure them.
Aha, by 'scientist', you mean 'empiricist'. What an amazing coincidence that the only things that exist are those which you can observe. I mean really, what are the odds of that? I am being a bit facetious, but my point is that sometimes we conflate 'things that don't exist' with things that 'we can say nothing about within certain boundaries'.
Also, you do know there are lots of things we do not observe directly, or indeed at all. I have seen 2 objects, and I have seen a squiggle on a page that is said to represent but I have never seen the number 2, but I am not sure I have ever observed the number 2 itself. Likewise, I have observed examples of things in a category, but not the whole category. I certainly have no objective reason to think that categories or types have any objective existence.
And don't give me that line about 'lack of evidence' - I know that trick too. Let me rephrase this: You rule certain things out of existence on the basis of an absence of proof. But absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence, or in your case, evidence that something lacks the quality of 'existence'.
Here's a question: How do you observationally prove that the only things that exist are the things that we can observe?
Let me clarify. I am not trying to trick you. The ethical and moral beliefs of others have a profound impact on me personally and on nearly everyone else on the planet, so I take it seriously.
When I say "there is a lack of evidence...." I am not claiming that the thing does not exist. It is possible that the main characters in Star Wars existed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I have a lack of evidence to suggest that those characters existed in the real world. I stand ready to modify my statement upon seeing the evidence. If you want to pray to the Jedi or guide your own behavior via virtue ethics, and you do so peacefully, that is OK with me. I would prefer people to not use the type of sloppy reasoning that causes harm to OTHERS (either directly or by proxy through their government) based on belief in things for which there is no evidence.
I say this in part because I have an abundance of evidence that suggests that conflict exists and is often justified by moral beliefs or similar beliefs about the way things should be (e.g., most wars, all political conflict, and domestic conflict, such as "my wife left the house during the day and had lunch with her friend and her friend's husband, so I punched my wife's teeth out").
I prefer for people to recognize the lack of agreement on political, religious, and moral issues, consider the possibility that humans lack an accurate and reliable internal mechanism for determining the truth of such beliefs, and follow the path by which we all refrain from harming peaceful people based on these beliefs. I would like people to understand that those beliefs are prone to error despite how emotionally attached we are to our own moral beliefs and how confident we are that the other guy is wrong.
I suspect that you prefer to not be harmed by somebody who uses sloppy reasoning to justify their harm against peaceful people, because you said in your previous reply: