Comments

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Choosing between utilitarian and rights-based arguments is especially difficult because both views have a basis in everyday moral thinking. The common sense notion behind moral rights is that each individual person is a separate being of enormous value. Rights are instituted to protect them from harm. The common sense notion behind utilitarian theories is that the goodness of what we do is at least partly determined by its consequences. If the results are better, the action is better. There is also a common moral sense belief that we should try to do as much good as we can.

Each approach seems appropriate in some situations. But how are they to be related or combined in a complete moral theory?

In spite of this basis in common sense (or perhaps because of it) it has proven impossible for philosophers to reach anything close to agreement on the relative importance of rights and utility. It has also been extremely difficult to provide solid foundations for either type of theory. Each is strong where the other is weak. Each is open to difficult counter-examples. Each is commonly used in political arguments. As you follow Ariadne's thread, try to develop a clear view of where the different kinds of argument come into conflict and how they apply to the ethics of affirmative action.