Dworkin is one of the most outstanding legal theorists in the world today. After the publication of his famous book "Taking Rights Seriously", it caused a huge shock in the legal circles, and he won worldwide reputation as a result. After reading this book briefly, I still don’t understand many of the things that are relatively obscure and profound to me, but I was enlightened by some of the discussions

Dworkin, as a Western postmodernist, One of the representatives of modern liberalism, his thoughts are all influenced by "freedom". On this basis, he gave a rational criticism of the utilitarianism prevalent in the United States. As for the concept of freedom, from the perspective of the development history of Western philosophy and sociology, freedom is a state in which the objective laws of nature and social laws must be recognized as the premise, and the connection between man and the external world is unrestricted. Freedom in the sociological sense is freedom in a balanced state of mutual respect and equality in the relationship between people. Freedom in the legal sense is based on the first two, and I think it is individual rights. No matter from which perspective, freedom is based on the individual as the starting point. It is for the individual. It means "treating a person as a person" and makes people continue to become free bodies. From this standpoint, rights are important things that we cannot ignore or break away from as human beings. We should not take them seriously but should take them very seriously because they are subject to restrictions and interference at all times. Dworkin saw this clearly.

He pointed out in the book: "Law is not a will imposed by the ruler on the weak, but a guarantee for the survival of society. In order to maintain social stability, the law should provide the necessary basic framework and norms , limiting the debate on these issues within these rules. Although legislation is a democratic process and is nominally a reflection of the will of the majority, legislation often rationalizes most adjustments to limit individual rights through utilitarian thinking. Laws on social, economic and foreign policies cannot be completely neutral. They must reflect the views of the majority of the society or some powerful people on social interests. No matter how strict the legislative process is, it cannot ensure that the rights of the minority are not harmed. , the rights system is crucial because it represents the majority's commitment to respect the dignity and equality of minorities. When such divisions among the population are severe, this commitment must be most sincere if the law must be enforced. ” It can be seen that utilitarianism does not really “treat everyone as an individual” as many legal scholars claim. In a society where inequality has become an undeniable fact, utilitarianism does not restrict individuals in order to pursue the interests of the greatest number of people. Rights are often recognized and accepted by most of us. Legislation that can sacrifice individual freedoms and rights for the sake of public interests can be seen everywhere. The most serious problem is that we readily accept and consciously accept these and integrate them into our lives. in the values ??of judgment. Limiting individual rights for the benefit of the majority tends to produce greater inequality. An equal society should pay careful attention to the rights of individuals, and should take them seriously, especially the rights of people at the bottom of society. Dworkin's argument actually answers the question of why we should take our rights seriously, a question that must be taken seriously by all of us.

So, what rights do we have if we continue to ask? Obviously liberals and utilitarians have different attitudes. Dworkin answered these complex questions from the conceptual analysis of rights as a starting point. He believes that the connotation of rights is different in different contexts. "When we say that someone has a right to do something, we mean that if someone else interferes with his doing it, then that interference is wrong, or at least shows that if in order to justify the interference you Some special reasons must be given.” From this sentence, we can realize that there is a clear difference between saying that a person has the right to do something and saying that it is right or wrong for him to do it. Dworkin believes that a real right must be the right to do something even though doing so is wrong in the eyes of the majority of society, even when the consequences of doing so may leave the majority worse off than before. Governments cannot deny this right even for the general good of society or to protect any kind of environment in which the majority of people wish to live. Taking citizens' freedom of speech as an example, he said that citizens have the right to freedom of speech. Even if the government believes that what citizens have to say will cause more harm than good, it is wrong for the government to prevent them from speaking. Dworkin's more radical meaning of rights is intended to raise people's vigilance against the government and public power, because they are the biggest threats to individual rights. The British thinker Locke famously said: "Where there is no law, there is no freedom, and unrestricted freedom does not exist." Liberalism does not deny this statement, nor does it metaphysically believe that freedom is unlimited. Dworkin also believes that rights are not unlimited and must be subject to necessary state restrictions. He believes that in a democratic system, every citizen has a basic moral obligation to obey all laws, even if he does not like those laws and wants them to be changed as soon as possible. This obligation he has is owed to his fellow citizens, because everyone is obeying the same law. Others may have complaints about the law, but in a stable legal order, no one violates the law. But accepting legal limits and responsibilities does not mean taking away the right of citizens to rebel against their government.

From a liberal point of view, Dworkin believes that individuals first have the right to resist the government.

Judging from the background of the author's book, the Vietnam War caused great trauma to the United States at that time, and many Americans believed that the country's foreign policy was unreasonable and led to the sacrifice of the lives of law-abiding citizens, which was praised as serving the national interest. Behind the diplomatic rhetoric of war are the consequences of politicians abusing the power given to the country. Judging from the history of the United States, this country, which has always advocated the pursuit of freedom, has been extremely careful and vigilant about government issues since the founding of the country. The process of drafting and establishing the United States Constitution was that the states at that time were working hard to protect the hard-won In the preparation process for the protection of freedom and human rights, the 55 founding fathers of the Constituent Assembly argued endlessly. The core debate was how the government should be established, for whom it should be established, and how its power should be limited. Later, a compromise was finally reached. The birth of the U.S. Constitution means the substantial establishment of this country, but what is more far-reaching is that this democratic country has established the rights-based idea of ??individual freedom, and has deeply rooted suspicion and vigilance against the government in the hearts of the people. The power of the government is given by the people, and its essence is to select institutions for the people to serve them, rather than to interfere with and restrict individual freedoms. Therefore, in order to maintain civil liberties, in reality, legislation must be given to citizens to have the right to resist the government. This confrontation should not be in a radical and violent way, but should be restricted in a peaceful and legal form. From the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution, the government has been rationally vigilant and regulated to the greatest extent possible to protect the rights of citizens. As a jurist in a country with this tradition, and more importantly as a liberal scholar, Dworkin will naturally add in-depth discussion on this basis. This can also be reflected in many places in this book.

Secondly, Dworkin believes that another important right that should be taken seriously is the right to equality and freedom. This is the most basic right of an individual from an individual perspective, and is also the basis for other individual rights. Dworkin's core concept does not emphasize freedom but equality. He believes that in policy decision-making, the weight of the right to freedom cannot compete with the right to equality. At the same time, he also made a distinction between freedom in his works. Freedom of permission and freedom as oppositionality. The former refers to an individual's freedom to do what he wishes to do without being restricted by society and law, while the latter refers to a person's freedom as an independent and equal person. He points out: "Good laws, such as laws against murder, limit it in the same way, while bad laws, such as laws against political speech, limit this freedom to an even greater extent." These two concepts are closely integrated. If a person is subject to excessive social and legal restrictions, then at least this is strong evidence that he is politically affiliated with the group that issues orders and imposes many restrictions on him. This is what we call the politics of submission to the ruling class. Require. From the perspective of the distinction between the two kinds of freedom, there is still a difference. Every legal system curtails freedom as permission, and there is no general freedom. The right to freedom is only a weaker sense of freedom as independence. Since every law that restricts liberty infringes upon this liberty, this right to liberty will not be very persuasive in political arguments and cannot compete with the right to equality, and there is no right to general liberty at all. As for the right to equality, he believes that "the right to equality means treating everyone equally, which is the highest political norm in Dworkin's opinion. If the government denies the public's right to equality, it means treating a person as an improper person. Or give less attention to others than others do. It follows that government must not only care for and respect people, but it must never grant more attention to someone on the basis that they deserve it. It must not limit the rights of liberty on the basis that one group of citizens' conception of the good life is more noble or superior to another's."< /p>

Some people think that equal protection of people is not absolute. Sometimes the rights of individuals to be protected by law are not fully feasible in practice, and they will conflict with our social policies to a greater or lesser extent. There will be certain restrictions on the equal protection of individuals. I feel that although these restrictions play a great role in maintaining the stability of the legal order from a utilitarian point of view, we should doubt their rationality. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of results, nor does it necessarily guarantee equality of results. Ensure substantive fairness and justice. The law provides equal protection to people, perhaps to balance some unequal opportunities in order to achieve justice for rights holders. For those who are restricted and have greater opportunity advantages, this balance is actually utilitarian. infringe upon its rights.

From the perspective of these two rights that we should take seriously, it is actually the external and internal contexts that connect rights and law. Dworkin's "Theory of Rights" starts from these two aspects, very well criticizes the inherent flaws of Western legal positivism and utilitarianism over the past century, and establishes the status of rights. At the same time, adjustments were made to the value levels of freedom and equality in legal principles. In this way, we can realize that if the law wants to be respected, it must be entrusted with some beautiful ideals and concepts of people. First, our government must take the law seriously. Ignoring the law is like ignoring the foundation of its establishment. There is no distinction between law and Administrative orders are also barbaric acts, otherwise it would be impossible to build people's respect for the law. Likewise, when a government does not value or take rights seriously, it also means it does not take the law seriously.

As individual citizens, both should actively fight for their rights. German jurist Yelling said that the essence of rights is struggle, for oneself and for others. Only through rational struggle can our rights be expanded and we will have the freedom we pursue. Perhaps it is only in the struggle that we understand what the law is to us: for the people we want to do and the society we aim to enjoy.

”