Taking Rights Seriously

By Ronald Dworkin

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1)    What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in the sense are protected by the U.S Constitution?

According to Dworkin view, if a person has the right thing to do, we should not interfere with his action. Thus, we can say that there is respect on the dignity of one’s person. The rights that are covered in the U.S constitution are free speech, equality, due process and etc. These are some rights that the constitution is being protected.

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 a constitutional right which means they are already stated in the law. While, moral rights are ethical rights that should be respected on one another. The legal rights are following the laws such as if there is a sign of no parking; we should not park our car in that certain prohibition. The example of moral right is to respect one another by way of not interfering to other’s work.

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

The first model states that there should be a balance between the individual right and the rights of the government. If the government stops the right to freedom of speech, then it has done wrong in individual’s right. This is said to be false because it is difficult to balance these two components such as the people and the government.

While, the second model states that each and every one should respect the rights of people.

Thus, the government should first understand the rights of the people, while the people should also respect the government. This is the most attractive because this is much acceptable in the society.

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

According to Dworkin, the two important ideas that are behind the institution of rights are faith and respect. Faith means we should believe that the lawmakers are knowledgeable on the rights we have. They know what moral rights should be considered as part of constitution and what moral rights that should not be considered are. Second is respect. We should respect the law in a way that we should try to avoid to break the law. Even though law is said to be not perfect, we should try to follow the rules or laws that are embarked in the constitution.

DISCUSSION QUESTION:

1)    Does a person have the right to break a law? Why or why not?

For me, a person has the rights. Therefore, they have the right to break the law. But first, they should be knowledgeable on laws that they would break since it is their way to defend themselves. Also, each and every one should be accountable for the actions they did. For example, a person who breaks the law should know the consequences of doing that action.

2)    Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?

I think the rights that Ronald Dworkin is saying is compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism because according to Mill, utilitarianism means that a person’s right action is based on their happiness. Thus, a person who wants to spend his money is can be considered as his rights because it is still his money. In the same with Mill’s theory, the spending of money is considered as right action because he is happy or enjoying.

3)    Do you think that Kant would accept the rights in the strong sense or not?

I think Kant would not accept the rights in the strong sense because Kant believed that it is moral to interfere with other people especially if that person knows that he is in that right position to interfere. While, Dworkin believed that it is not good to interfere with other people right. Each and every one should be accountable for the actions they did. For example, a person who breaks the law should know the consequences of doing that action.

4)    Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?

I think the rights that Ronald Dworkin is saying is compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism because according to Mill, utilitarianism means that a person’s right action is based on their happiness. Thus, a person who wants to spend his money is can be considered as his rights because it is still his money. In the same with Mill’s theory, the spending of money is considered as right action because he is happy or enjoying.

5)    Do you think that Kant would accept the rights in the strong sense or not?

I think Kant would not accept the rights in the strong sense because Kant believed that it is moral to interfere with other people especially if that person knows that he is in that right position to interfere. While, Dworkin believed that it is not good to interfere with other people’s right.