Rights are not generally evaluated in morality; they are more of a political and social concern. Yet they are all about morality. The problem is that rights are too mechanistic and superficial for moral analysis. Morality is about intention. It is defined by intentions. The intentions take care of the superficial mechanisms involved in rights.

Yet there seems to be a need to integrate the subjects of rights and morality, because corrupters assume they have a right to destroy other people. They operate at the level of rights, and they have no relationship to intention based morality, because that subject is to abstract for them.

Power destroys rights. That's what power is used for. It's why there is no such thing as constructive power when considering the only power corrupters know—the power over other persons. A more objective form of power could be described, but it is totally outside the view of corrupters, since they repel all objective elements of existence. Sin subjectivizes their existence.

Power overwhelming rights is the essence of sin. Rights would not even be a thought otherwise. The destruction of rights makes rights a relevant concept.

The key concept in the subject of rights is equality. Corrupters want to do something to others which they do not want others to do to themselves. If everyone did the same thing to everyone, in an acceptable way, there would be no sin. There has to be a difference in what corrupters do to others and what others do to them before there can be sin.

This is of course why the 'golden rule" is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Mat 7:12). If that equality existed, there would be no sin.

Sin is that which destroys life. The basic mechanism of sin is to do something to someone which would not be tolerated for self. Sin cannot be tolerated, because it destroys life.

But so far, the bad thing is just being called "something." What is that something? A large part of it is being causative. A major goal of all corrupters, which they can more or less understand, is to be totally at cause and never effect. They assume this is a noble and worthwhile goal, perhaps to a point of justification. In other words, the persons who can achieve being totally at cause and never effect are supposedly the most successful, which reads most worthy, and which in turn reads most in need of running other peoples' lives. (Corrupters string their rationalizations together in horseshoe loops to get to any absurd end point.)

There is no sin in being effect, but it is almost impossible to be cause without perpetrating sin. It is impossible to be subjectively causative without sin, and being causative is the essence of power.

Acquiring power to be cause over other persons is inherently sinful. Yet corrupters assume it is the highest of virtues. One important point to realize is that there is a positive reinforcement with power which causes it to seem good regardless of the objective realities, just as Pavlov's dog would have considered bell sounds to be good due to the positive reinforcement.

But beyond the positive reinforcement, it's important to understand why being cause over others is inherently sinful. Conceptualize it this way: Can a backseat driver with blinders on properly control a vehicle? Being cause over someone runs interference with their ability to properly control their own life. The person being cause over someone has less contact with the complex realities in a person's life than a backseat driver with blindfolds. All they can do is exploit and degrade the persons they are cause over. Isn't this exactly why corrupters do not want to be effect?

How can everyone be cause and no one effect? They can't. Someone has to be effect when someone is cause. If it is so desirable to be cause, why should there be inequality in the result? Inherent in the purpose is the fact that some persons will succeed, and some will fail. Strife to be winners instead of losers becomes a part of the process. The winners are supposedly superior and selected through a social Darwinism to be better than the losers, and this logic is supposedly why the winners should run other peoples' lives.

But what if the logic is no better than the crime logic? The winner is not a superior person who should be running other peoples' lives but a destroyer and threat to society. Sin is not the noble test of superiority but a threat to existence.

The simple essence of rights is the need for people to make their own decisions about their own lives. Since they cannot function otherwise, they have a right to expect as much.

There is a philosophical tendency to get much deeper into rights using a myriad of explanations, such as God's implanting some characteristic of beingness, etc. But the morality is not dependent upon philosophical rationalizations. The morality functions on the level of the golden rule. What the perpetrators demand for themselves defines the morality. They don't allow someone to do to themselves what they do to others. Therefore, it is wrong. It is wrong because it destroys life, and people don't allow it to be done to themselves, because it destroys their ability to live.

The basis of all significant sin is domination. Domination is being cause over others. It always includes degradation, because the victims must be subdued.

You might assume there is a lot of cause-and-effect in normal human interactions. But not really. Cause-and-effect is a corruption and breakdown of constructive human interactions. Constructivity requires a communication link between persons which allows people to make their own decisions. Persons who don't know this are constantly creating problems in their relationships with others.