Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights

by Alan M. Dershowitz

Book Overview

This is a wholly new and compelling answer to one of the most persistent dilemmas in both law and moral philosophy: If rights are "natural"-if, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, it is... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0465017134
• ISBN13: 9780465017133
• Release Date: November 2004
• Publisher: Basic Books
• Length: 272 Pages
• Weight: 0.66 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 5.8" x 8.4"

Customer Reviews

A good read. An interesting theory.

I loved this book,not because I completely agree with Dershowitz theory(although generally I do),but because of how clear and understandable he writes for the non-scholar,such as me. Dershowitz does a great job dismissing the simplistic and silly idea that rights come from God.Which god?The god of the bible?The god of the koran? If the God of the Bible is the source of our rights,then why did women have so few in biblical times?Why was slavery permitted?Why did religious minorities have no rights?If one worshipped any other god it was punishable by death.If a child was disrepectful of his parents he could be stoned to death.These things seem barbaric to us because we have seen through the lens of human experience that these things are unjust.Neither the bible,nor any other holy book ,is the source of our rights,but a codification of what an ancient people thought their rights should be,based upon their unique circumstances,their historical experiences,and the particular culture in which their lives and history developed. The same can be said for the argument that our rights are "self-evident",that they come from "nature and nature's god"as stated in the Declaration of Independence.At that time slavery was legal,women had far fewer rights than they do today,native americans had few rights,as did those who owned little or no property.Apparantly many of the rights that we take for granted were not very self-evident only 230 years ago. I highly recommend this book.It is well-written and an enjoyable read.

Challenging, but Dershowitz is Right (and Left)

This high level book on legal philosophy attempts to discover and explain the origins and future development of human rights and civil liberties. Legal scholar, Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz makes no attempt to tutor readers. He starts from an expert philosophical perspective, and only goes deeper as he seamlessly navigates through contemporary, historical and judicial examples to present his theory about the origins of rights. Dershowitz is a masterful, machete-wielding guide through a dense, challenging forest of ideas laced with tangled vines of legal ideology. We recommend his book to readers with prior knowledge of the progress of human rights and U.S. civil liberties, as well as social and legal philosophy. It is a notch thick for good cocktail party conversation or easy undergraduate debate. However, it exemplifies Dershowitz's vivid thought process and powerful command of social philosophy. Dershowitz and other civil libertarians feel constantly compelled to challenge any court rulings or majority-held opinions that even remotely hint of infringing on real or perceived personal rights. This book fully explains why.

An Exploration into the Philosophy of Law

The California Constitution begins with a statement that all rights arise from God. The Federal Constitution makes no mention of God at all. The Declaration of Independence relies on a philosophy of natural rights...eg. the rights to life, liberty and happiness. Professor Dershowitz argues for a "theory of rights" that derive from a community's experience of harm or injustice. I would agree that he correctly determines the "source of rights", but, I think, different communities will have different perceptions of injustices as well as conflicting solutions. (I might add that human nature is imperfect and many societies use scapegoats to address a problem). So when the Germans were crippled by the peace terms with the Allied powers after the conclusion of World War I, what should the solution have been? Or in abortion cases, do we place emphasis on the right of the fetus to life or the right of the woman to choose? Therefore, there can be no universal system of rights, even though most societies punish murder, theft, and adultery. Historically, there will also be an interrelationship between a community's religion and law, a determination of rights that Dershowitz studiously avoids. For example, in many Moslem cultures, the Koran will influence the determination of rights - e.g. the rights belonging to someone who practices Islam versus, let's say, the rights of someone who worships idols. Nevertheless, Professor Dershowitz forces us to think about these great issues and develop new rights or expand old ones if communities can minimize injustice. A worthy read.

Excellent Read, but Liberal Bias Pervades

Rights from Wrongs is an excellent read; it essentially expands on essays Dershowitz wrote in Shouting Fire. I was glad to get a more in-depth analysis on his theory on the origin of human rights. The theory that human rights come from human wrongs is really not novel in that correcting social evils is the animus of most democratic public legislation; indeed, legislators, and others looking to discern legislative intent, strive first to identify the social evil that the legislation was, or is, intended to correct. Dershowitz's liberal bias pervades this work, as he emphasizes the social evils that liberals hate, while discounting the social evils that conservatives hate, as if they weren't as compelling when, in truth, they are no less compelling (or perhaps even more compelling). For example, on the issue of abortion, Dershowitz sees the social evil of women being forced to get abortions in back alleys as the animus for the right to abortion, while discounting the equally compelling social evils than animate opposing abortion; i.e., cheapening life to the point of abetting infanticide, euthanasia, and other forms of murder, including genocide. (See the example of Nazi ethics as practiced in Europe.) Indeed, the "right to life" is no less born out of human wrongs than is the "right" to an abortion. Similarly, on the issue of organ donation, Dershowitz sees the social evil of not having organs available for transplant as the rationale for a right to organ donation, while discounting the very real social evil of executing, murdering, and otherwise killing people prematurely in order to obtain high in demand organs by desperate customers willing to pay top dollar for them as the animus for avoiding such a right. (See, for example, practices by the Chinese government and other "organ dealers.") I especially take issue with Dershowitz's position that "[a]nyone who refuses to sign the box on the driver's license application, which constitutes consent to removal of organs after death, is either a coward, a fool, a knave, or a slave to superstition or religious fundamentalism." (210) I refuse to sign that box for none of those reasons: I refuse to sign, because I don't want someone to hasten my death on account of a customer willing to pay top dollar for my organs: I want physicians focused on saving my life, not on ending it for a profit! To prevent a hastening of death is my understanding of why Judaism, in particular, opposes organ donation, and not merely because the body should be interred whole. This is a fence erected around a very real social evil that Dershowitz would have us believe to be somewhat chimerical, and it is not chimerical at all. Last but not least, Dershowitz would have an easier time if he would just concede God's existence. I have witnessed him go to every extreme to avoid conceding God's existence, and this book is no exception! To debate the existence of God is foolish, in my eyes, although I concede there is

Excellent book

This is a book that should have been written at least 40 years ago. It contains nothing original, being a mere application of Popperian epistemology to the origin of rights. In a sense, the book amounts to a mere naturalization of law (not to be confused with natural law, which AD rejects). While it is an excellent book, Dershowitz displays remarkable lack of tact and understanding in dealing with Dworking's arguments. I am waiting for Dworkin's response. Cf. Karl R. Popper's Conjectures and Refutations and, to a lesser extent, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.