- Margalit's theory equates self-interests with rights, a connection likely to be drawn by modern Western philosophers (Rawls included). It views rights as the product of self-interests. People achieve rights according to their interests (whether communal or individual). The entire social system and its functioning is dictated by interests. A person's self interest is what will motivate him to seek this right and then ultimately to implement this right. A right allows the fulfillment of an interest, and an interest is protected by a right. Whoever believes in liberal-individualism, as Dvorkin depicts it (and as Barak does in his rulings) believes that at the center of man's being is a blueprint in which are linked the connections between will and right, between right and interest, between interest and will, and so on and so forth. This is in essence the opposite of Sieyes' philosophy. Instead of saying that only the will of the nation can by virtue of its very existence turn into law (or right) - Dvorkin's liberalist theory emphasizes the supremacy of the individual over the 'good' (interest) of the general society. Modern day Western communitarianism (in contrast to modern day liberal individualism) also associates man's self interest with his will. Communitarians view man as the center and purpose of ethics and morality, but since they view the individual as a social creature, they speak of the community and society. In this way both liberal individualism and communitarianism in our days relate to the tension between the supremacy of the individual's right and the 'good' (interest) of the general society. The common denominator between these two theories is the centrality of man's self interest. This is the issue that distinguishes both of these theories from an ethic based on religious Jewish faith. This will be the subject of the following chapter.