The fact you're adding the modifier of "civilized society" here is the rub. This is why I am insisting you're not using a stable definition across domains of applicability, and why I am arguing you are making a category error in your reasoning. You're flip flopping between the categories and then having to add constraints and/or affordances in a context-dependent way. To my mind, you're literally describing different categories of things, and your use of the word "right" has *completely* different connotations within your state of nature reasoning, than it does in your "civilized society" reasoning. From a moral philosophical point of view, I'm struggling to extract anything resembling a transcendent principle, here.