Library Reference: N/A

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0534584306/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233793391&sr=8-1

Quote:  “institution requires an act of faith on the part of the minorities”

What I expect to learn:

     I expect to learn why rights are needed to be taught and be taken seriously by us.

Book Review:

    “Ronald Dworkin, QC, FBA (born December 11, 1931) is an American legal philosopher, currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law, and former professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford. He is known for his contributions to legal philosophy and political philosophy. His theory of law as integrity is one of the leading contemporary views of the nature of law.” (Wikipedia. Retrieved Febrauary 8, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/Ronald_Dworkin)

    Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense is that we need to see moral rights in a serious sense. This sense are protected by the U.S. constitution or the law and the law is the one who is the one who will protect us to the immoral things that might happen to us by other people. The first model is about balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society. The first model is indefensible. The second model is abridging a right as much more serious as inflating one. From what I understand Dworkin chose the first model. Legal rights are based on the perspective of few people who thinks and says what they think is right and it is concrete and cannot be change except if the congress does so, while moral rights depends on each and every person. The two important ideas behind the institution of rights are the political and social. Moral rights that are not legal rights are like when going to church every Sunday and praising the lord even if you do not attend mass you won’t be held for a crime.

What I learned:

    I learned that rights are should be taken for because it is the only protection that we can get from the state and for ourselves.

Review Question:

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

•    Dworkin mean by right in the strong sense is that we need to see moral rights in a serious sense. This sense are protected by the U.S. constitution or the law and the law is the one who is the one who will protect us to the immoral things that might happen to us by other people.

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 based on the perspective of few people who thinks and says what they think is right and it is concrete and cannot be change except if the congress does so, while moral rights depends on each and every person. Legal rights that are not moral rights are like killing a person for his crime. Moral rights that are not legal rights are like when going to church every Sunday and praising the lord even if you do not attend mass you won’t be held for a crime.

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

•    The first model is about balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society. The first model is indefensible. The second model is about more familiar idea of political equality. The second model is abridging a right as much more serious as inflating one. From what I understand Dworkin chose the first model.

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

•    The two important ideas behind the institution of rights is the political and social.

Discussion Question:

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

•    Every person has the right to break the law but he/she must be prepared to meet the consequences of his/her actions.

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

•    I think that rights are different from Mill’s utilitarianism because rights is more democratic while utilitarianism is more on one ruler.

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

•    I think Kant will accept the right in the strong sense

Integrative Questions:

1.    What is the law?

2.    To what extent the law is applicable?

3.    When will we know that we disobeyed the law?

4.    What is the baseline before committing a crime?

5.    What is right to the law?