5 min read ⌚ 

Do we really need to discuss such matters in the digital era? – Unfortunately, we do.

We put in a nutshell what needs to be done, and how to give refuge to these minority groups, whose rights are cast aside!

Who Should Read “Taking Rights Seriously”? And Why?

At some point in life, we all encounter a situation in which, a specific group of individuals is getting better treatment than the others.

The fundamental nature of liberty is the idea of providing everyone with the same service.

The idea of a right to liberty is a misconceived concept that does a disservice to political thought.

The governing legal bodies must take precautions to tackle corruption and put the rights of the ordinary people on top!

We recommend “Taking Rights Seriously” to all people who at one point in life felt abandoned by the social and legal system.

About Ronald Dworkin

Ronald Dworkin was an American Philosopher, a scholar of United States constitutional law, and the author of several books.

He will be remembered for his contribution to rebuilding the legal system in the States and help those affected by its transgression.

“Taking Rights Seriously PDF Summary”

If there are no laws and regulatory compliance, legal positivism wouldn’t exist. If the power of certain individuals or systems can’t be restricted, the world will fall beneath an authoritative jackboot. In general, no standard should be enforced out of this context.

If the social system understands the cause to enact certain measures to avoid lawlessness, there’s nothing to be worried about.

Indeed, the approval of these laws and norms, requires signature and support by an executive legal body, to adjust the existing precedent and jurisprudence.

Indeed, from the beginning of time, the legal system of a country was modified and transformed to accommodate the needs of the ruling class.

These changes were brought into line with the positivist view, by which all the other verdicts, complaints, lawsuits, and quarrels were set in motion.

It’s pretty evident that being in tune with the legal side of things relies on the ability to build on positivism, whereby no rules are enacted outside of the loop.

Is it ethical only to rightfully use the legal power in the courtroom, or is it the right of every human being? Judges and juries hinge on the state regulative and enforced laws when they need to carry out the adjudication. In the same fashion, positivism errs must be linked to moral values and principles.

That being said, the ethical side is neglected on a regular basis. The core of the sentencing process is on the same wavelength as the governing bodies, whose regulative is never perfect.

Defending someone’s legal and constitutional rights, in terms of practices, requires a distinct skill-set that binds on the moral side of the law.

Political rights are creatures of both history and morality.

If the client-attorney privileges, for instance, are not honored, or if the client doesn’t enjoy full-discretion, the proceedings would hold no meaning.

Another example:

It comes as no surprise that if the government institutions had issued a decree to proceed with the trade, the executives must honor their side of the agreement. The whole legal gamesmanship affects the country’s position in the global arena.

So, the question is how to categorize rights?

• • Absolute or non-absolute

• • Abstract or Concrete

• Institutional or background

Who deserves all the merits, and how to enforce the law on all levels of the society? When it comes to absolute rights, it refers to something called full-enforcement, without any hidden policies in the back pocket.   

Abstract rights, on the other hand, can’t be defined nor excluded from the rest, with just a written note. These standards cover a broader area such dignity, integrity, mission, goals, ideas, vision, and so forth.  

What differs concrete rights from the others, is their specific nature, that complies with specific standards that ascertain the deprivation of rights, or something similar.

Background rights are tightly linked with the social system, as the claims or demands are made upon the society, generally speaking.

When I appeal to fairness I pose a moral issue; when I lay down my conception of fairness I try to answer it

Do we all need to abide by the same principles, or is the magnitude of the problem that decides how we behave?

Precedents can more easily tip the balance in favor of the suspect during the proceedings because it heavily promotes fairness.

Likewise, if the state has failed to reach a level of total control over the legal system, the country will collapse.

If the international law doesn’t advocate for liberty and social justice, which grants every individual the freedom of speech, or the rights to express its opinion publicly, we are leaning towards catastrophe.

These fundamental conventional rights, serve as a guarantee that all people will receive fair treatment.

Amplifying these weak signals gives rise to a new order, which takes into consideration the wishes of all.

All citizens or people that are inhabiting the Earth must be given the right to choose their way of life. It’s the democratic right of every person, to vote, or not to go along with the agenda of the political candidates.

As we can see, the democratic system should Take Rights more Seriously and thus improve the well-being of the global population.

Key Lessons from “Taking Rights Seriously”

1.      Social problems in the spotlight
2.      Democracy to the full extent
3.      Take a firm stance from an impartial perspective

Social problems in the spotlight

Social and economic issues can’t be detached from arguments, and laws enacted to ensure justice and equality.

Although democracy and monarchy meet on controversial grounds, the act of enforcing these laws is in sync with the country’s regulation and government liberty.

Democracy to the full extent

In the 21st century, anything other than deciding a punishment based on democratic norms is considered to be a disaster.

If you can’t endorse, you can at least act in accordance with your political or social liability in the area of influence!

Take a firm stance from an impartial perspective

Creating an image before sentencing or confining the areas of prejudices, can help the judge to put principles before personal agenda.

Having the power, invested in you by the state, is another aspect for you to remain neutral and unbiased when you pass judgment or incarcerating anyone.

Like this summary? We’d Like to invite you to download our free 12 min app, for more amazing summaries and audiobooks.

“Taking Rights Seriously Quotes”

Our Critical Review

Many people all around the world are suffering deprivation of rights and are being exploited to safeguard the interests of certain individuals.

This book reveals how to oppose these influences, by pleading for social justice and equal rights for everyone.

Also published on Medium.