Ronald DworkinReseñas

Dworkin was a very clear writer. Loved the style. The substance is fascinating. Makes me wish all philosophers wrote in this tone.

Ronald Dworkin seems to be pleading for the introduction of common sense into the political debate in our Country, but any immediate resolution seems far down the road. Overall, I felt this was a somewhat uninspired, boring discussion of underlying principles which could lead to reaching agreement by those on the left and those on the right, and thereby lead to a functioning democracy instead of the partisan divide we presently have in Washington D.C.

CX01

Justice for Hedgehogs has a picture of a hedgehog on it. The image is quite adorable but that is not the point that the author is trying to make. Written by Ronald Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs attempts to show that morality is not something one is capable of making compromises on while still being upstanding. The idea for the title is from a quote made famous by Isaiah Berlin. Foxes know a lot of things while hedgehogs know one big thing. The author argues that being ethical requires you to have a central tenet that you follow.

There isn't really much more to say without making this an essay so I won't go into specifics. The book was really enjoyable, 5 out of 5.

I could not follow his tortured sentence structure. I found it very difficult to track his thought processes from one point to the next.

Religie zonder God’ is geschreven door de Amerikaanse hoogleraar rechtsgeleerdheid en filosofie Ronald Dworkin. Het verschijnt postuum en is een uitwerking van een lezing die hij twee jaar voor zijn dood heeft gehouden.

Het is duidelijk dat het boek is geschreven door een rechtsgeleerde en filosoof want daar gaat het met name om. Dworkin begint met de zin: ‘De centrale gedachte van dit boek is dat religie dieper gaat dan God’. Dat werkt hij vervolgens uit in het kader van het vraagstuk van de godsdienstvrijheid. Hij gaat in op de verschillen (maar met name de overeenkomsten) tussen theïsten en religieuze atheïsten en hoe die overeenkomsten kunnen leiden tot een wederzijdse acceptatie.

Voor vrijzinnigen zal met name het eerste deel van het boek interessant zijn waarin Dworkin ingaat op de overeenkomsten tussen theïsten en religieuze atheïsten. Theïsten geloven in God, in een hogere macht. Religieuze atheïsten ontkennen het bestaan van zo’n opperwezen maar worden in hun schouwen van de wereld wel geleid door een bepaalde objectiviteit die aan alles voorafgaat. Een theïst zal dat God noemen, een atheïst allerminst.

Wat Dworkin hier doet is wel interessant: hij plaats theïsten en religieuze atheïsten als het ware op één lijn wat de verwondering betreft. Ook zij die het bestaan van een God ontkennen zijn op een bepaalde manier spiritueel en mystiek bezig. Dat is een stelling die met name in de vrijzinnige hoek met applaus ontvangen zal worden omdat daar over de existentie van God wordt gediscussieerd. Terwijl van vrijzinnigen vaak wordt gezegd dat zij geen gelovigen zijn, legt Dworkin uitgebreid uit dat religieuze atheïsten wel degelijk op één lijn zitten met mensen die vol overtuiging in God geloven. En dat is mooi om te lezen

I was expecting a critical examination of America's political institutions, but that's not what this book is. Instead it's an attempt to engage a broader audience from both (Republican and Democratic) sides in moral debate. The author sets forth "two basic principles of human dignity" and goes on to discuss American torture practices, religion and taxation from this moral vantage point. I'm not really sure what he intended to achieve with this approach. He repeatedly pleads for reasoned replies to his arguments, but I think he has little chance of arousing much interest in abstract moral debate among a broader public. He writes as a moral philosopher about moral philosophy. Whether he likes it or not, that very much delimits his audience to other moral philosophers. I think a more practical approach would have fit the title of this book better. For instance, he could have examined why American political institutions are so dysfunctional. For what it's worth: vetocracy, plutocracy and the dearth of alternative parties are three characteristics of American democracy which lead this European observer to wonder whether democracy is possible over there.

A teoria do direito de Dworkin sustenta que argumentos jurídicos adequados repousam na melhor interpretação moral possível das práticas em vigor em uma determinada comunidade. A essa teoria de argumentação jurídica agrega-se uma teoria de justiça, segundo a qual todos os juízos a respeito de direitos e políticas públicas devem basear-se na ideia de que todos os membros de uma comunidade são iguais enquanto seres humanos, independentemente das suas condições sociais e econômicas, ou de suas crenças e estilos de vida, e devem ser tratados, em todos os aspectos relevantes para seu desenvolvimento humano, com igual consideração e respeito.

This is the first book of Dworkin's I've ever read, and I think I'd have gotten more out of it if I'd already been familiar with his work or if I'd read the book more slowly. The publisher notes that Dworkin's illness and death prevented him from expanding the book as he'd planned to, which also might have made it easier to absorb. I have optimistic thoughts of rereading it at some point and really thinking about it. But even on this first reading, I was intrigued by his ideas on religious atheism and his argument that religious freedom should be based on a right to ethical independence rather than on belief in God(s).½

A collection of essays originally presented as papers at an Institute for the Humanities conference dedicated to the work of Sir Isaiah Berlin in 1998. The papers focus on his contributions to the history of ideas, the nature of liberalism, and his advocacy for the state of Israel. The first section of essays, titled "Hedgehogs and Foxes" after Berlin's most famous essay, discusses the nature of revolutionaries, idealogical thinkers, and concludes with an assessment as to what kind of thinker Isaiah Berlin himself was. With exchanges such thinkers as Ronald Dworkin, Bernard Williams, Thomas Nagel, Richard Wollheim and Michael Walzer essay the ideas of one of the seminal intellectuals of the twentieth century.

Dworkin's 19 essays on various topics, including the Anglo-American legal system

Tedious reading from Dworkin, but great!

A 70-page pamphlet lamenting the U.S. Supreme Court's dramatic rightward turn due to the Bush appointments, consisting of four previously-published Dworkin articles and no new content, this wasn't at all what I had expected when I pre-ordered it from Amazon.

The book strikes a strange balance between pure polemic and actual, jurisprudential examination. The first two papers presented are almost entirely rhetoric, aimed at the Senate Judiciary Committee and their seeming incapacity to properly execute their duties in vetting supreme court appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. I found the latter two chapters more useful, and more disturbing. Chapter 3 paints a credible picture of the direction the Court is moving with regards to abortion rights in the U.S. Believers in a woman's right to her body have good cause to be concerned, as the right-wing block is already working to undermine the jurisprudential underpinnings of the Roe and Casey decisions. Chapter 4's portrayal of the more direct undermining of several key Constitutional protections by this new "phalanx" should be frightening to any reader - liberal or conservative. As the Court works to erode the theoretical bases for long-standing precedent, the entire system of stare decisis is put in question, and our ability as a people to rely on the protections we demand from our government is grossly threatened.

I'd hardly call it a must-read, but the final two chapters were informative on matters that all responsible citizens should be made aware of.½