In this text, I will address the question of whether human rights as moral rights exist objectively. This issue is of great practical importance because the recognition of human rights should not depend on anyoneʼs whim. Moral objectivity can be understood in different ways. A metaphysical realist considers moral objectivity in a strong sense. This means he assumes the existence of moral facts of a metaphysical nature. The expressivist prefers a weaker conception of moral objectivity. This conception can be explained by moral attitudes of the second order. These attitudes are one of the defining features of the language of human rights. The disadvantage of metaphysical realism is the epistemic uncertainty about the existence and content of metaphysical moral reality. This permanent uncertainty has the potential for moral skepticism. I will conclude that human rights are objective at least in a weaker sense. The objectivity of human rights is an entirely human matter. It is not encoded in metaphysical reality but rather in the way we think and talk about human rights. If we have doubts then the only thing we need is better self-understanding. This conclusion is optimistic because it means that human rights are objective regardless of the existence of a moral reality in a metaphysical sense. Moreover, a metaphysical realist can accept the expressivist solution as a good choice in case of loss of his faith.