Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

 

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Link:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

contemporary+moral+problems&x=0&y=0

 

Quote:

 

“Not all legal rights or an even constitutional right represents moral rights against the government.”

 

Learning Expectations:

 

1.       To know why it is necessary to take rights seriously.

2.       To know what are the rights of the citizens

3.       To know what are the rights and what are the rights to break the law.

4.       To know if what are the legal rights.

5.       To know what are the moral rights.

 

Review:

 

            According to Dworkin if the people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. This notion of rights according to him rest on the Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community and also to the idea of political equality. The concept of rights and particularly the concepts of rights against the government have its most natural use when a political society is divided and appeals to co-operation or a common goal are pointless.  The rights that are protected by the USA Constitutions are those rights that are known and agreed upon by their country and by their people. They are protecting all rights that they have as along as it is not violated and abused

            Legal rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems. Meaning this are the rights that are under the legal systems for example individual rights of free speech, equality and due process and the like. While moral rights are rights that is based from morality and conscience of an individual. As an addition it is also called moral rights or inalienable rights, are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity.

            The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the individual and the demands of society at large. The first model has great plausibility. The metaphor balancing of the public interest against personal claims is established in our political and juridical rhetoric and this metaphor gives the model both familiarity and appeal. Nevertheless the first model is a false one, certainly in the case of rights generally regarded as important and the metaphor is the heart of its error. On the other hand, the second model is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of political community ere entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the more powerful members have secured themselves, so that if some men have freedom of decision whatever the effect on the general good then all men must have the same freedom. And as I go through the chapter t think Dworkins are more attractive to the second model.

           

Learning’s/Insights:

 

·         “Not all legal rights or an even constitutional right represents moral rights against the government.”

·         Notion of rights according to him rest on the Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community and also to the idea of political equality

·         Someone has the right to do something in the sense and saying that it is the “right” thing for him/her to do or that does no “wrong” in doing it.

 

 

Integrative Questions:

 

1.       Does man have the right to break the law?

2.       Does the right of free speech protect this sort of speech?

3.       How should the different departments of the government go about the defining moral rights?

4.       Does the government respect the moral and political rights of the citizens?

5.       Do the government foreign policies or its race policies fly in the face of these rights?

 

Review Questions:

 

1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the USA Constitution?

 

According to Dworkin if the people have the right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. This notion of rights according to him rest on the Kantian’s idea of treating people with dignity as members of the moral community and also to the idea of political equality. The concept of rights and particularly the concepts of rights against the government have its most natural use when a political society is divided and appeals to co-operation or a common goal are pointless.  The rights that are protected by the USA Constitutions are those rights that are known and agreed upon by their country and by their people. They are protecting all rights that they have as along as it is not violated and abused.

 

2. Distinguish between legal and moral rights. Give some examples of legal rights that are not moral rights, and moral rights that are not legal rights.

 

Legal rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems. Meaning this are the rights that are under the legal systems for example individual rights of free speech, equality and due process and the like. While moral rights are rights that is based from morality and conscience of an individual. As an addition it is also called moral rights or inalienable rights, are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity.

 

3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?

 

The first model recommends striking a balance between rights of the individual and the demands of society at large. The first model has great plausibility. The metaphor balancing of the public interest against personal claims is established in our political and juridical rhetoric and this metaphor gives the model both familiarity and appeal. Nevertheless the first model is a false one, certainly in the case of rights generally regarded as important and the metaphor is the heart of its error. On the other hand, the second model is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of political community ere entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the more powerful members have secured themselves, so that if some men have freedom of decision whatever the effect on the general good then all men must have the same freedom.

            And as I go through the chapter t think Dworkins are more attractive to the second model.

 

4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?

 

Act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities and justifications of rights are the two important ideas behind the institution of rights.

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Does a person have the right to break the law?

 

Yes if they want to but we all know that breaking it has also the obligation to face the consequences, but on the other hand no one must break the law because that is the law powerful and unbreakable well it depends still on what law it is; moreover the law coming from the lord, this is definitely and certainly unbreakable.

 

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill's utilitarianism?

 

I think so. There are some compatibility with the view and the concepts, there is a connection.

 

3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense?

 

I think he will because I know and based from his pervious writing and views he knows and he relates on what rights says.