- Accords dignity to individuals, for whom one can act, whereas utilitarianism we see runs into the problem of ultimately acting for units of utility, or “the situation”
- Protects against favoritism, partiality or unfairness in ethics.
- Does not allow individuals to be sacrificed for the greater good and so does not permit utilitarian-style atrocities such as fighting wars without restraints, bombing civilians, using weapons of mass destruction that are indiscriminate in targeting and horrible in their effects, mistreating prisoners of war, or overriding the right to freedom from torture.
- Again unlike utilitarianism, protects against other harms such as medically experimenting on mentally disabled humans or perhaps animals (if the rights frameworks are extended to animals, as animal rights theorists have indeed sought to do for each type of standard rights theory).
- Makes a priority out of preventing harm unlike utilitarianism which is equally concerned with securing benefits, even if the means are harmful.
- Allows for rational, consistent treatment of individual rights-holders.
click on your home
to go to KCI's home