Ronald Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
Quote:
“The Constitution fuses legal and moral issues, by making the validity of a law depend on the answer to complex moral problems, like the problem of whether a particular statute respects the inherent equality of all men. This fusion has important consequences for the debates about civil disobedience.... But it leaves open two prominent questions”
What I Expect To Learn:
I expect to learn meaning of strong sense. I also want and expect to learn what legal and moral rights are and how they are different from each other. I also expect to learn the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens. Also, I expect to learn the two important ideas that are behind the institution of rights.
Chapter Review:
The concept of right in the strong sense means that when a person has a right, nobody is allowed or can interfere with that person towards their right. This means for example, I have the right to watch television anytime I want. Nobody can interfere with that right and force me away from the television.
Legal rights are rights which fall under the law while moral rights are rights that do not fall under the law but are sometimes subjected to law. Moral rights are more closely related to a person’s conscience and his own humanity.
What I Learned:
At the end of the discussion, I learned the concept of right in the strong sense. I also learned what moral and legal rights are and how they are different from each other.
Integrative Questions:
- Who is Ronald Dworkin?
- Why do you have to take rights seriously?
- What are legal rights?
- What are moral rights?
- What is the institution of rights?
Review Questions
- What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the U.S. Constitution?
By strong sense, Dworkin meant that when a person has a right, nobody can or is allowed to interfere with that person towards their right. I cannot really name any rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution as I am not an American citizen nor have I ever been there.
- 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.
To simply explain this, legal rights are those that are under the law while moral rights are rights that are not under the law but are sometimes combined into a law.
- 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 the rights of the individual and the demands of the society and has great plausibility. The second one is the more familiar idea of political equality that supposes that the weaker members of a political community are entitle to the same concern and respect of their government as the most powerful members have secured for themselves. The second model is also the one that Dworkin finds more attractive.
- According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of rights?
The two important ideas behind the institution are that it must require an act of faith from the minorities and that the government will not re-establish respect of law without giving the law some claim to respect.
Discussion Questions
- Does a person have a right to break a law? Why or why not?
It depends on whose point of view we’re going to talk about here. If I answer this on Dworkin’s point of view, then a person will have a right to break a law because of his idea of right in the strong sense. On the other hand, in my point of view, I don’t think a person has a right to break a law because it would obviously be against the law.
- Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism? (See the footnote about institutional utilitarianism.)
Yes because Mill’s utilitarianism implies only actions that bring happiness and freedom are right and those that don’t are wrong. In relation to Dworkin’s article, he says that if a person has a right, nobody can interfere with that person and on these ideas we can see a very big similarity between them which is promoting freedom.
- Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not?
Yes, he’d accept the concept of rights in the strong sense because it gives importance to freedom of a person.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.