Empino, Romir Gian O.

ITETHICS
Taking Rights Seriously: Ronald Dworkin

Review Questions
1. What does Dworkin mean by rights in the strong sense? What rights in this
sense are protected by the U.S. A Constitution?
– On Dworkin’s view, if a people have the right to do something, then it is
wrong to interfere with it. The US constitution protects the rights of a
human under the First Amendment, and in due process, equal protection
and similar clauses.

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.
– A legal right is the right of a citizen protected by a constitution while a
moral right is right of a person according to his morality and conscience.
The example of legal rights that are not moral rights is, Divorces and
annulments are legal in some countries but it is immoral in terms of
commitment to another party. An example of moral rights, which is not a
legal right, is if you are in a situation of life and death situation against a
killer, you have the moral right to decapitate or kill the person but in
terms of the law, it is not appropriate to kill.

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 while the second one is that the
government inflates a right (by defining it more broadly that justice
requires) then it cheats society of some general benefit, like safe streets,
that there is no reason it should not have. Dworkin likes the second model
because the first one is false in a sense that the right is important but
unfortunately not, while the second one embraces the rights of the
society.

4. According to Dworkin, what two important ideas are behind the institution of
rights?
– The act of faith by the Majorities and Minorities.

Discussion Questions
1. Does a person have the right to break the law? Why or why not?
– Yes because it his right to act upon his will and conscience knowing there
will be risks and consequences.

2. Are rights in the strong sense compatible with Mill’s utilitarianism (See
footnote about institutional utilitarianism).
– Yes.
3. Do you think that Kant would accept rights in the strong sense or not?
– Maybe if he would act on his decisions based on his point of view.