Human rights only exist when one defends them with violence and takes them to create them. Those in power create what is right and wrong and human rights, so the only way to keep what you believe to be them is to fight, and perhaps kill for your rights. Rights don't exist unless one takes them and fights for them.
I have no idea why this guy made the question worded like this. The question was confusing and seemed terrible. I disagree completely and believe that this question is completely, and utterly inappropriate, pointless, and confusing. I just waisted my time answering this weird question, and should have spent it doing something else.
I am in agreement with SauinDuine, the question is worded in a manner that creates confusion as to the intent of the question. Does it mean that human rights should exist but do not in reality, or does it assert that there is no such thing as human rights? Human rights do exist and they are worth fighting for. Schopenhauer correctly stated that sacrifice is frequently required in order to secure and maintain these rights. They are, however, worth the sacrifice.
It doesn't matter how human's obtain rights, but the idea and concept that Human's have rights are ingrained with society. Schopenhauer himself states that human rights exist but only if the human rights are obtained through violence. The question needs to be worded better.
Was the original question better worded to be that Human rights are not inherent but obtained?