Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Taking Rights Seriously by Ronal Dworkin
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “The institution of Rights is therefore crucial, because it represents the majority’s promise to the minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected.”

Learning Expectation: On this sub-chapter, I am thinking if I will learn:
• Why it is entitle taking Rights Seriously
• How it is connected with Law, Government and individual Rights

Review:
I do agree on what Dworkin says that the government should dispense with the claim that citizen never has the rights to break the law and it must not define citizen right that these are cut-off for supposed reason of general good.

I agree to this because there are certain instances that government should tolerate law-breaking in some cases, namely, when laws conflict with rights. On Dworking example, if our army capture an enemy soldier, the right thing to do for the enemy soldier is to escape, because he will be punished on the context that he only do his duty as a citizen of his country. I didn’t not say that we should let him escape, what I am pointing is that we think that if we look on other perspective, the law can tolerate this because he will die if ever he doesn’t do this actions.

Another example that I can think of if the employee doesn’t show in her work and doesn’t have any resignation letter. The employee can be sued in terms of unprofessionalism but it can be tolerated by the law if the reason why she did that was because her boss was harassing her.

Another point that I also agree on is what Dworkin says that any Government harsh treatment of civil disobedience or campaign against vocal protest may therefore be thought against its sincerity. Government and laws do subsist because it protects its citizen’s right. It helps its citizen to be protected against circumstances that can harm her. And if the government does such thing, we can really conclude that they don’t have full sincerity on their duty to their inhabitant.

I also agree that the government view is necessarily the correct views; anyone who thinks it does must believe that men and women have only such moral rights as government chooses to grant which means that they have no moral rights at all. Like what I said earlier, government are there because it protect us, but it doesn’t mean that it cover everything. We have rights that can’t be cover by what Government laws states, these rights are our edge on our Government.

What I have learned:

I learned on this chapter that sometimes you need to break what everyone think as right in order to make them realized that there is a better right. Sometimes, the time changes what we think right and turned them into hidden wrong. This instances need to be corrected in order to make this assumptions right in all manners possible.

I also learned that Government should allow law breaking provided that you don’t harm other people and it is really necessary. Breaking the law in this manner will also have consequences but it will never as heavy as it main prestation says.

Review Questions:

1. What does Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense? What rights in this sense are protected by the U.S. Constitution?
2. Distinguish between legal and moral right. Give some example of legal rights that are not moral right, and moral right that are not legal rights.
3. What are the two models of how a government might define the rights of its citizens? Which does Dworkin find more attractive?
4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution or rights?

Answers:

1. On Dworkin’s view about the rights he said that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them. For example, if citizen have a right to free speech, then it is wrong for the government to interfere with the exercise of this right (unless this is necessary to protect other right). And there are two rights that have been protected by the U.S Constitution, the legal and moral rights.

2. Moral Rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity in contrast Legal rights are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

3. The first model recommends striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of the society and was described in this way, has great plausibility, and most laymen and lawyers he think would respond to it warmly, while the second model is the more familiar idea of political equality. This supposes that the weaker members of a political community are entitled to the same concern and respect of their government as the most powerful members have secured for themselves, so that if some men have general good, then all men have the same freedom. Dworkin find more attractive on the second model.

4. According to Dworkin the institution of right must require an act of faith on the part of the minorities and the second was the Government will not reestablished respect of law without giving the law some claim to respect.

Discussion Question:

1. Does a person have aright to break the law? Why or why not?
2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism?
3. Do you think that Kant would accept right in the strong sense or not?

Answers:

1. Yes they have a rights to do that as long as they are not doing wrong and it can be applied the concept of Dwokin that if a people have a right to do something, then it is wrong to interfere with them meaning to say that if the people didn’t agree on what is stated on the constitution they have a power to break it as long as they have a well acceptable reason to proved their complains.

2. Yes it is compatible because Mill’s utilitarianism state that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of Happiness meaning to say rights are promoted just for us to attain freedom, and if there is freedom of course there will be peace and happiness.

3. Yes he will accept it because rights are the only things that can gave every individual a freedom for them to choose what they want and what is the best for them as long as they will be happy and also as long as their decisions doesn’t break the law.