DISCLAIMER WE make no warranty of any kind on the subject matter included or the completeness or accuracy of this website. We aren't liable for any actions (or lack) resulting from the information here. And in no event shall we be liable for any damages resulting from reliance on or use of this information. The posts at this site are for general information only. Get expert help when dealing with specific situations and do not rely on the information here.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
So a Question is:
How do we judge the grounds for rights if there are no first principles to guide that search. Is what's right, what's a right, merely a contingent historical judgment grounded on nothing but consensus about the meaning of experience? If no there are no standards to guide these judgments, the consequence for the meaning of rights, moral and legal, is sheer relativism without a basis for preferring one sovereign consensus over another at any given time. But if there are first principles--the value of life, equality, the rule of law, for example--where do they come from? It strikes me that Dershowitz erases the very ground his argument stands on--judging wrongs and deriving rights from them--by denying the existence of the very principles he wants recourse to as standards for making judgments about wrongs.
No comments:
Post a Comment