Sources & Extracts

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

Alan Goldman agrees that there is a tension between rights and utility. In Goldman's view of affirmative action this is very important. He does not believe that the benefits of a policy of reverse discrimination should be allowed to override the right to be judged on the basis of competence, the right to compensation, or the right to equal opportunity. On the relationship of rights to utility he has this to say:

What is the value or purpose of recognizing rights within a moral or social system? This question, invariably raised in philosophical discussions of rights, is pertinent to our specific task of relating them to utilities in deciding the justice of reverse discrimination. For the first purpose of recognizing rights is to protect certain interests of individuals against utility maximizing or additive calculations regarding (other) interests of others. For example, if we recognize a right to property, this means that if I have acquired something in a manner that is legitimized in the stipulation of the right, I am entitled to continue to hold it in spite of the greater need of others for that sort of object or the greater utility realized by transferring it to them. If in each instance one had to demonstrate only increased utility, interest, or need satisfaction in order to take any part of another's property, the right to property would vanish. To cite another example, if there is a right to free speech, then I am permitted to make and required to be protected in making certain types of statements no matter how much offense others may take at them. If, in order to silence me, it had only to be shown that others take more offense than I derive satisfaction from making specific statements, the right to free speech would dissolve.

Reference: From Alan Goldman, Justice and Reverse Discrimination, p. 151-152.