From the self interest of the strongest. To help yourself you necessarily have to learn to help others. Empathy is the natural disposition of humans. We understand to some degree the plight of those suffering.
Utopian ideals are just that. Too often the path to some ideal leads down darker avenues then expected. Caution is not a terrible remedy.
Regarding the self interest of the strongest: Pls note that, first, the consequences of such foundation for compassionate behavior are what Marx predicted they would be: A minimum regards, at best. Consider what it means to think like this: you are strong, perhaps you inherited great wealth, perhaps you have strong rhetorical skills, a great memory, who knows. If ALL that guides your hand is self interest, where is the motivation pursue any agenda that does not exploit the lesser endowed for the purpose of maximizing your self interest? If you can lie, cheat, undereducate, in short do anything that reduces a human being what is serviceable for you, where will this go? Ingnorance comes to mind: a proper denial of education (should ring a bell. Marco Rubio famously stated that we need more plumbers that philosophers) keeps resistance to your ego megalomania low. Subsistence wages come to mind: Ignorant people settle for less and fall for the most specious reasoning to defend it (what's good for GM is good for America)
Lots more on this.
Empathy is natural???? In some it is, in some it is not. In conservative, there is a decided lack of empathy.
The basic human condition is not a basic human right. What is is. Human rights legislation is a attempt to set a global goal, it’s patronizing, superficial and makes people feel like they are entitled to certain treatment regardless of their behavior.
I don't follow this. the condition is not a right? Do you mean, the basic human endowments when they are brought into the world to family and intellect and talent are not sufficient to produce rights? I don't think so, but needs clarity.
Human rights legislation: patronizing? how so? superficial? Depends on the given case. It can be both, but need not be either at all. Are you referring to failed attempts to perfectly realize human rights? You can't look at the way things turn out in failed real attempts in actual practical complex situations, and infer from this that the idea itself is a bad one, as if any attempt to find your wallet fails and so you conclude people just should try to look for their lost wallets. But perhaps it is just the idea itself. Forget the globalism you mention, You think anyone who tries impose human rights into a system of government "makes people feel they are entitled" when they are not. It can, of course, anything can fail. So what?
The point is missed in all this: it is not about what can go wrong, it is a matter of whether one can successfully argue that there are such things as human rights at all.
Keep it a secret if you think things will go badly afterward, if governments' attempts to realize equal rights inevitably make things worse, then the argument to refrain from putting in action is another affair altogether.