(Return to main path )

Here's another argument.

One way to argue for including strong individual rights in our system of morals is to first construct a social ideal and then argue that establishing certain individual rights is a means (perhaps a necessary means) to that ideal. This approach acknowledges that rights are our creation; but it gives us a reason for establishing a system of rights.

Legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin has suggested that equal concern and respect for each individual is the most fundamental political value. I agree with that position. The question is how to interpret the phrase 'equal concern.' A utilitarian might say that equal concern means that the happiness or welfare of each individual is equally important. Each is to count as one and no one for more than one, as Bentham used to say. A libertarian might say that equal concern means that each individual should have equal guaranteed liberty. A Catholic might say that equal concern means that the eternal salvation of each individual has equal (and infinite) value. For me, equal concern means that every individual should be guaranteed the basic resources and liberties required to develop his or her capabilities.

If our ideal society includes everyone realizing their capacities (within moral limits) and being protected from harm, then a set of individual rights is a means to that ideal. Those rights would include the right to believe as they wish, to construct and pursue their ideals, and not to be harmed. In addition, I would argue that the right to the basic resources that allow a hard working person to realize his or her capacities should also be included. In other words, I would argue for limited positive rights as a means to establishing my ideal society. I know that Dee will reject that view.

Of course, all of this turns on accepting a certain social ideal, and I would agree that it is impossible to prove that everyone should accept that an ideal. Nevertheless, a description of that ideal might prove quite attractive.