(Click here to continue on the main path)

It appears that several of you are not happy with either libertarianism or utilitarianism. 

But perhaps we can combine a lot of what has been said here. I want to throw out a suggestion.

Perhaps we can agree that a moral system must include a set of rights that will limit what can be done to the individual to achieve certain results. But at the same time, perhaps we can agree that the actual consequences of implementing a set of rights on a large scale must be considered when those rights are defined.

Furthermore, even after we have defined rights as best we can, with a consideration of overall consequences, there may be cases in which they can be justly overridden. Some philosophers have suggested that rights are prima facie moral obligations that can be overridden in some circumstances because of other moral considerations. 

Some have suggested that proper procedure (defended by libertarians) and social utility (defended by utilitarians) are two dimensions of justice. If this is true, then no theory of justice is complete without considering both.

But can this be done in a logically consistent, principled, non-arbitrary way? That's a serious problem.