(Return to main path )

Let me add something else. If we follow Ann's logic, we end up with rights based on the principle of utility. If we allow that, then a new problem arises. There is almost no limit on the rights that people can have. Individuals can have a right to non-interference but they can also have a right to have all their basic needs met. And there is no reason to stop there. Utilitarian rights, if there are such things, could be rights to almost anything that maximizes welfare or preference satisfaction.

Let us suppose that based on the principle of utility we can prove that people have a right to medical care. Who is supposed to provide that care? Who is supposed to pay for it?

Do you see where I'm going?

The point is that a right like the right to medical care -- what professor Sidgwick called a welfare right -- is really a right to the product of someone else's work. It has to be paid for by someone else's money. It is a way for one group to control and exploit others who are said to have a duty to supply them with certain goods or services.

I can't accept that. I'm a firm supporter of non-interference rights, but I reject all or nearly all welfare rights.