Wellman says that we should not try to solve every social problem with rights and that we need to evaluate these rights for their individual merits (169). He also claims that “the language or rights in political discourse is that it invites dogmatism and inhibits any rational dialogue between those who disagree on social and legal issues.” These statements sum up a lot of the confusion I’ve had recently with the nature of rights in society. Prior to reading the book rights had always seemed to be an absolute good. Most high school history classes focus on how the US has expanded its civil rights and how expansion of personal rights is an unquestioned, universal good. Wellman first argues that we need to look at rights on their own merits and not as part of the group of legal rights. We shouldn’t assume that all legal rights are equal and especially valuable. Certain legal rights are more important than others, and some aren’t the best way to social problems.

In the United States our views of rights seem to be absolute. We claim individual rights that we feel outweigh every other consideration and shouldn’t be questioned. The language or rights seems to often impede political and social debates. The debate about abortion seems like it hasn’t progressed or changed in years. Both sides claim their rights and believe their rights outweigh all other considerations. When we believe we have a moral right, we no longer have to take anything else into consideration. Getting away from the rhetoric or rights in these debates may help us to realize neither side has a claim to absolute truth and both sides can be debated and challenged.