No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.
That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.
The whole notion that these documents with legal rights are important philosophically, is outrageous. There can be two societies (made up of individuals), that both lay claim to a particular area, for their own "legal reasons". Now what Cephus? The right to life is granted by society A, but society B rejects that claim. Who is going to save your argument now? Society A agree, society B doesn't! Throw up your hands in despair? If that's what your notion of right to life is based on, it's absurd.
The right to life is recognized as being important based on two fundamental reasons:
1. Humans on average value their life. A lot. Most have the intellectual capacitiy to recognize this. And most also have the honesty to admit it.
2. As a matter of logical hierarchy, other rights require one to be alive to exercise them, so it has primacy, i.e. hierarchically more important.
(There are other things that can trump it, but that's a different discussion)
As Henrin notes (I think?), it starts with you...the individual. What you want, what you believe, and why. You can of course also be incorrect. You may also join up with others, and based on your individual belief that life is you know...important, you might codify it, and put on a pointy hat and claim "I have granted that right as a society!", and then Cephus will bow down and agree that only NOW do we understand where the right to life came from....