(Return to main path )

Professor Sidgwick made a distinction between non-interference rights and welfare rights. Let me say clearly that utilitarianism doesn't regard that as a fundamental distinction. For utilitarianism the goal of all moral rules is to maximize human welfare. If welfare rights can do that, they are perfectly acceptable.

I personally believe that some combination of non-interference rights and welfare rights can be justified by an appeal to the principle of utility. I don't see any special problem with welfare rights.