It's pretty clear that utilitarians in general don't recognize "metaphysical" rights, isn't it? As Richard says (and I think most utilitarians would agree), "rights are a kind of social institution." Your view that "rights" are objective and "the good" is subjective is almost (though not precisely) diametrically opposed to his view that …
It's pretty clear that utilitarians in general don't recognize "metaphysical" rights, isn't it? As Richard says (and I think most utilitarians would agree), "rights are a kind of social institution." Your view that "rights" are objective and "the good" is subjective is almost (though not precisely) diametrically opposed to his view that "what matters" is an objective question and that "rights" are social conventions.
Yes, my question was meant to know what "rights" mean under prudent utilitarianism, since the word has been used. Nothing, it seems like. And failure to respect the "is ought" distinction is certaintly one of my issues with utilitarianism.
It's pretty clear that utilitarians in general don't recognize "metaphysical" rights, isn't it? As Richard says (and I think most utilitarians would agree), "rights are a kind of social institution." Your view that "rights" are objective and "the good" is subjective is almost (though not precisely) diametrically opposed to his view that "what matters" is an objective question and that "rights" are social conventions.
I have enjoyed reading your posts, by the way!
Yes, my question was meant to know what "rights" mean under prudent utilitarianism, since the word has been used. Nothing, it seems like. And failure to respect the "is ought" distinction is certaintly one of my issues with utilitarianism.
And thank you!