Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory On The Origins of Rights by Alan Dershowitz appears to have grown from the author's previous small volume on the Declaration of Independence in which he attacked the concept of natural rights.* This follow-up (a bit longer, but still quick reading) argues that the best way to "invent" (for he does not before they "exist" in nature to be discovered) rights is to examine the wrongs society have suffered.
For instance, slavery determined that freedom over one's person must be a basic right of a free society, even if we are not exactly sure of the best way to compensate a person for his/her work. This focus on wrongs as compared to ideals for us to strive for is felt by the author to be an easier way to reach agreement, given generally it is easier to accept that something is wrong than to decide how to do things right. Or, as a doctor might say, "first do no harm."
One example that I would use in discussing rights from wrongs is the drug war, a small aspect of which was recently discussed here in relation to use of illegal drugs in a religious ceremony. Oral argument on a case involving medicinal marijuana use in California will be held on Monday (check Slate for the likely Supreme Court Watch coverage of the event). The ultimate question (though I and many of those supporting the patients also support a wider argument) is federalism: does congressional commerce power reach local medicinal use?
The Supreme Court a few years ago held that distributors of marijuana cannot use a "medical necessity defense," but three justices (Justice Breyer did not take part because his brother took part in the ruling below) specifically said that users might be able to raise such a defense. Justice Stevens in his concurrence cited the various ballot measures that allowed for medicinal marijuana use, and said federalism concerns should caution unnecessarily setting up federal/state conflict.
As suggested by one commentator, it is unclear where such patients will receive their supply -- they surely cannot all grow the stuff. Perhaps, if the local or state government was directly involved it would be a different story. The main opinion was purposely narrow in its reasoning, so many questions were unanswered. There is some reason to hope, therefore, that the patients might win.
No matter how it decides, the growing number of states that allow medicinal marijuana use (which someone who is much more conservative than I firmly told me recently should obviously be allowed) suggests that in some small ways at least that people realize the idiocy of the extremes of the drug war. The best way to stop big wrongs is sometimes small reasonable steps, and allowing state experimentalization on this issue is this principle in action.
--
* The author provides an interesting and thought provoking discussion in both books, but tries to prove a bit too much at times. Overall, his argument is that the concept of "natural rights" is nonsense since nature is morally neutral. He does note that nature must obviously be taken into account when determining rights, but it is often quite immoral too.
Also, there really are no "self-evident" truths agreed upon by people overall. Since anthropologists have found certain norms that cross cultures (some limit on murder and incest comes to mind), I find this a bit exaggerated, but his basic point is sound. Overall, perhaps the natural rights effort is best seen as "rights that are developed by taking nature into account," which seems to me a worthwhile if somewhat limited value enterprise. [Yes, many twist nature to fit their moral beliefs, but this problem arises across the board.]