Do I say that humanistic rights must have some external validation? They're motivated by the existential condition (our clash with godless nature), but that doesn't mean that nature validates or proves the merit of our lifestyle. We're the ones who judge, but what are our judgments based on? Ultimately, we decide based on whether a way of life is ethical or aesthetically pleasing as a response to the existential condition. Are we acting nobly or heroically, or are we "inauthentic" and fleeing from our responsibilities?

Morality is wishful or idealistic because it adds to the facts how they ought to be. That's why imperatives aren't dictated or validated by the facts. We imagine an ideal scenario, and are driven to realize it. Which ideal scenario is best? Nature won't tell us, but we tell ourselves based on pride in ourselves and our cultures, and on our familiarity with nature's monstrous absurdities.