[5] The book was also discussed by Richard Brooks in the Journal of Legal Education,[6] the philosopher Marcus George Singer in Ratio Juris,[7] Ari Kohen in Human Rights Review,[8] Eric Reitan in Social Theory and Practice,[9] Brian K. Powell in Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review,[10] Rutger Claassen and Marcus Düwell in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,[11] and Anna-Karin Margareta Andersson in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

"[3] Adams described the book as a major work in the ongoing enterprise by modern philosophers to "solve the problem of morality from within the epistemological assumptions that define the dominant cultural perspective of our age."

He credited Gewirth with developing his arguments in favor of "modified naturalism" patiently and carefully, and with providing "rich detail and abundance of insights".

[5] Brooks credited Gewirth with providing "a complex and detailed brief for an individualist, humanist, ethical position" and presenting "a logical linkage between the system and legal decision making relevant to law students.

[8] Powell suggested that there was a "decisive objection" to Gewirth's views, which he compared to those of the philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel.

They noted that Gewirth's approach to morality "has been widely discussed with regard to its basic assumptions and the strengths and weaknesses of its justification" and that it has been "applied to discourses about human rights, political philosophy, economy, and bioethics".

He also rejected Gewirth's view that rational agents must acknowledge these rights for all in order to claim them for themselves, arguing that, in a person's capacity as a rational agent, they want only noninterference from others, and that this does not logically require them to accept "the duties entailed by wholehearted acceptance" of the rights Gewirth sees as following from people's need to engage in "purpose-fulfilling actions".