Letter to the Guardian

As anticipated yesterday, I emailed the Guardian today about Dworkin on Bentham on rights.

Dear Guardian

Ronald Dworkin's most recent column, on Wednesday, May 24, contained two errors that have not yet been corrected, but which should not be left to stand.  He wrote:

[T]he 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham [..] said that all that matters is the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and that the whole idea of human rights is therefore "nonsense upon stilts".

The final phrase contains both problems.  First, Bentham's critique was of late-18th-century natural rights, not mid-20th-century human rights as set out in the UDHR in the 1940s.  Although the two are conceptually and historically linked, they are nevertheless distinct.  So Bentham did not criticise human rights as 'nonsense on stilts', as they did not yet exist.

Second, Dworkin's use of the word 'therefore' is wrong.  Bentham's Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights is not dependent upon his 'greatest happiness' principle.  It's not a utilitarian argument against natural rights (whatever that might be); it's simply a rather entertaining and insightful philosophical rant against the ideology of natural rights. It stands (or falls) alone from utilitarianism.

I am aware of the irony, if that's the word, of Dworkin being Bentham professor of jurisprudence, UCL.  I am looking forward to seeing his errors being corrected in next week's Guardian.

Yours sincerely,

We'll see...