Rights vs. Responsibilities, Article Critique Example

In this article, David F. Lloyd makes the claim that the “prosperous” countries that compose Western society are currently much too focused upon the alleged rights associated with the individual and specific groups, such as the rights of ethnic minorities, women, children, single parents, homosexuals and lesbians, workers, consumers, companies and organizations, and even plants and animals. Lloyd also declares that as a result of this heavy focus on specific rights, Western society will eventually experience a number of adverse effects, helped along of course by the “litigious and predatory legal systems of the Western world,” including that found in today’s America. Lloyd then asks the reader a question–is this “obsession with rights creating a better society?” The answer according to Lloyd is definitely in the negative, due to society becoming “increasingly self-centered and dangerous” which makes the pursuit of happiness “more elusive than ever” before (2013).

As evidence to support his claim, Lloyd quotes five different sources that tend to agree with his assessment related to the current focus on individuals rights–1), the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 which in part declares that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights;” 2), author Arthur J. Dyck who proclaims that “Strengthening rights is dependent on strengthening the connections between rights and responsibilities;” 3), author Mary Ann Glendon who states that the current focus on individual rights “encourages our all-too-human tendency to place the self at the center of our moral universe;” 4), British writer and philosopher

Anthony O’Hear who asks “Could it be that the type of material and political progress on which we pride ourselves is actually the cause of (our) spiritual and aesthetic decline?” and “Could the root cause of our discontents be the lack of inner resources, rather than higher expectations of life?” and 5), author W.A. Borst who asserts that American society is “now finding common sense more endangered than the snail darter” and that the “lack of common sense has led inevitably to a rights revolution, where only selfishness and personal interest seem to reign supreme” (2013).

As to the existence of flaws in Lloyd’s supportive evidence for his claim or assertion, the only area of concern is that the quotes are subjective rather than objective, i.e., they are based on opinion, personal beliefs, and attitudes. The exception is the quote from the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1948 after World War II as a result of the atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany. However, the quotes from Dyck, Glendon and Borst have been taken from their respective books on rights and responsibilities and the negative impact of liberalism in America, all of which are scholarly and contain extensive supportive evidence.

In his concluding remarks, Lloyd points out that “Our narrow and selfish preoccupation with rights is a moral and spiritual health warning that all is not well with our society” and that unlike in the past when people “focused on their moral and social responsibilities,” we now tend to complain about our alleged lack of rights related to the individual and specific types of groups (2013). In sum, Lloyd stresses that personal responsibility must win out in the end and that people must accept responsibility for their own actions and shortcomings. However, without common sense, this would be a daunting task indeed. Overall, Lloyd’s conclusion does support and encourage his initial claim that the current focus on alleged rights associated with the individual and specific groups is way out of control.

Although Lloyd’s initial claim is based quite solidly on “common sense” and discusses aspects related to rights that most (if not all) intelligent persons would agree with, there is an undercurrent of bias or subjectivity that runs through the entire article. This is because Vision.org, the website that published Lloyd’s article in the winter of 2008, professes that it examines topics and current events “through the wisdom of an ancient source–the Bible” and that “the principles contained in (the Bible) are still relevant and can be applied to help solve global, national and personal conflicts” (2013), such as the failure of people to accept personal responsibility for their own actions and behaviors and their focus on the self, rather than on society at large.

Also, Vision.org is wholly funded and supported by the Church of God, a non-denominational organization in Pasadena, California, which admits that it possesses “no social or political agenda and does not attempt to influence the political process in any country where it operates” (2013). Oddly, the very nature of Lloyd’s article is awash with religious overtones, such as mentioning the rights associated with co-habitation “without a commitment to the formality of conventional marriage,” the right to “live a homosexual lifestyle,” and the rights related to a woman’s decision to “terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the right of the unborn to live” (2013).

Obviously, this article could be vastly improved by eliminating all references to the rights associated with religious beliefs and practices, thus making it much more objective than subjective. Also, it could offer some well-founded solutions to Lloyd’s initial claim instead of skirting the issue with subjective opinions. As to writing a paper on this topic, I would utilize the quotes from Dyck, Glendon and Borst because of their “common sense” approach which would bolster a paper written from a purely objective standpoint. However, I would not quote from Lloyd himself because of his obvious biases and his connections with Vision.org and the Church of God.

References

Lloyd, D.F. (2013). Rights vs. responsibilities. Retrieved from http://www. vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=4750