Misc hmn rights

One argument could be in the sense the fact that in some instances, human rights would have to be violated to increase utility ("trolley problem"). 

Where do human rights come from? What is a human right if it is not something someone somewhere has agreed upon is a human right? Why should the unique respect of another person claims is a human right? Human Rights can be seen as a spook.(or at best a good spook)

Though this is not to say that we should not go around trampling on other peoples human rights. 

Though since human rights are for all intents and purposes simply a form of morality they are definitely spooks  

The anticedent of the current conception of human rights was the sense of natural rights and natural law, which is a philosophical construction that specific stuff are so foundational they are viewed as inalienable, but obviously they are routinely alienated so that hasn't precisely helped us much. But essentially a human right is only a moral statement that is looked at as sacred in someway, and so people who think about human and natural rights would likley be described as invollentary egoists.

"Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist, for him who is always looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being... ...Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism will not come off him. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist." The ego and his own - Benjamin Tucker translation.

And is it not sort of arbitrary, to talk of morality, and to elevate it so that this moral conception is so fundamental as to no longer being a moral, it is a right, from nature itself. Remember egoism rejects the  concept of morality itself. Morality is also a spook, and so it limits the individual and causes them to remain shackled, even more so than with the law. The law is enforced by violence, morality is enforced by the individuals own mind./

All Individuals have interests, many of whom have shared interests, which still exist when we do not pretend that there are "human rights" associated with them. 

Egoism is not the rejection of empathy. Morality might be a spook, at least with our understanding of it. On the Genealogy of Morals by Frederich Nietzsche he discusses such a topic perfectly, "Reason, seriousness, mastery over the emotions, the whole murky affair goes by the name of thought, all the privileges and showpeices of man: what a high price has been paid for them! How much blood and horror is at the bottom of all 'good things'!" (Pdf for On the Genealogy of Morality By Nietzche)

Good and evil as a social dogma are not aligned with Egoism. However, rejecting empathy is rejecting what makes us all human. Egoism is not a rejection of being human

Pedos, for instance undoubtedly harm people physically, emotionally, and mentally. I, as a human being with empathy, do not enjoy that. I love my fellow man/woman, I don't want my fellow man/woman to get hurt. Max Stirner also says something similar, "I love men/women too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them."

To have empathy is among the few things that has saved us. To be huddled around a fire in the cold night 42,000 years ago is what kept people alive. Helping the sick, and hurt, and elderly is not inherently 'morally' good, but it is empathetic. TREY the Explainer has a good video about this.