(Return to main path)

Let's take a specific example of the conflict between property rights and utility -- between Dee and Ann. Dee has been offering arguments for strong individual rights and Ann has suggested that utilitarianism can also support strong rights. I'm not so sure.

If Dee is correct about property rights, it is a violation of those rights for the government to require seat belts in all cars sold in the US. According to the libertarian view, the decision to put seat belts on cars should be left to automobile manufacturers. 

On the other hand, there can hardly be any doubt that if belts were not required, more drivers would buy cars without them. Injuries and fatalities would rise. That seems incompatible with any utilitarian basis for the strong property rights Dee advocates. Therefore, I don’t see how utility can serve as a basis for strong rights.

If by rights we mean constraints that by definition require much more than bare utility to justify overriding them, it seems that by definition utilitarianism cannot provide the basis.