(Return to main path)

I think that the insistence on checking consequences indicates a basic misunderstanding about what moral rights actually are.

Rights are moral trumps. Moral stop signs. Constraints on calculations about consequences. That's the whole point.

Look -- in some respects the world might be better off if bodily organs from some people were simply given to others who need them. There are billions of people with two eyes; and maybe the total sum of happiness or welfare would go up if we took one eye from some people and gave it to those who have none. The people who are blind really need those eyes. I don't doubt it for a minute. But the people who were told to give up one eye would object that the eye is theirs. It's not available to redistribute. They have a RIGHT to keep it, and no one else has a RIGHT to take it. They claim their right as a moral constraint on what people can do to them.

Morality isn't always about consequences. Do you see what I mean?