Yea
at least

thats the only way that "natural rights" make any sense.

But its also extremely vague on details
which is fine.

Agreeing exactly what the morals are,
and how to derive rights from them,
is very murky and fraught with disagreement.
Large parts of the world do not derive "freedom of speech" from "you cant kill or enslave others" for example.

Which I why I've been arguing for pragmatic rights,
those you can actually assert
and are generally agreed upon socially.

Although I agree morality is a survival mechanism and tends to be pretty consistent across time and cultures.