Cornell’s (law, Univ. of Michigan) book starts with a 1924 law case where railroad employees dropped a package while loading it on a train; the package exploded, permanently injuring a bystander who later sued for recompense and lost. A judge argued that the woman was clearly wronged by the railroad, but she had no prior right to be protected from the unforeseen event. She had only a promise of a safe ride on the train. Thus begins Cornell’s long, technical exposition of the differences between rights and wrongs, both moral and legal. Rights, the book argues, are prospective promises made prior to delivery of goods or services. Wrongs, on the other hand, are retrospective, corrective, and need not involve rights at all. Cornell analyzes a variety of situations to see how the law has been extended (or not) to address wrongs. Along the way, he draws on philosophers Aristotle, Thomas Nagel, and Robert Nozick, along with Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, Bob Dylan, and others to illustrate his points.
VERDICT Not an easy read but a pertinent one on an important, thorny topic about untidy laws and opposing theories of rights, wrongs, and morality.
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!