If the language of rights is an essentialpart of any adequate account of justice, then that language (like the notion of justice itself) has to situate itself somehow within a larger account of how people fit into the natural order. What is it about us that can make it true that we hold rights against others even though those rights are contrary to all established conventions? What is it about us that can make it true that we hold rights against others even though it might please those others to violate our rights? 

老师好，我的问题与加粗部分有关。

1. “What is it about us that can make it true that ”从英语用法上来说怎么理解？我是笼统翻译为“我们是如何使自己……”，但确实不太有把握。

2. “against”是否有“指向”或者说“对于”的意思？我的翻译是“我们是如何使自己拥有指向他人的权利”。之前看到有人有这样的表述“when I was a child I had a right against my parents to be taken care of by them.”或者是“My rights against the University of Oxford arise out of my contract of employment with the University. ”不然翻译成“对抗”比较古怪，而且不符合原文的学术语境。但是我在牛津词典上又找不到相近于“指向”或者说“对于”的翻译，所以比较困惑。

3. 最为困惑的是最后一句“please”的用法，我翻阅了牛津、韦氏和朗文，实在是想不明白“please”的用法，有“please sb. to do sth.”吗？“please”之前的“it”是形式主语还是实质的？

按照我个人的理解，我把后两句翻译成

“我们是如何使自己拥有指向他人的权利，即使这些权利与所有既定的惯例相违背？我们是如何使自己拥有指向他人的权利，即使这可能会诱导他人来侵犯我们的权利？”

纠结了比较久的问题，请老师不吝赐教，真的非常感谢。