A government calculates that torturing one terrorism suspect would save 100 innocent lives. A rights-based theorist would most likely respond:
AThe torture is justified because the consequences are overwhelmingly positive
BThe calculation is relevant but must be carefully weighed against the right not to be tortured
CThe suspect's right against torture blocks the calculation regardless of the expected outcome
DRights are suspended in extreme circumstances when the stakes are high enough
Rights function as 'trumps' over consequentialist reasoning — they mark out a protected zone that cannot be traded away for aggregate benefit. This is precisely what distinguishes rights-based ethics from consequentialism. Option B mischaracterizes how rights work: they are not merely one factor to weigh in a calculation. If they could always be outweighed by sufficiently large consequences, they would not be rights in any meaningful sense.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A person has a legal right to vote but lives in a remote area with no transportation to a polling station. Which of the following best characterizes their situation?
AThey have no right to vote because they cannot exercise it
BThey have the right but lack the power or means to exercise it
CTheir right has been automatically waived because they cannot attend
DRights only exist when they can be exercised, so this right is temporarily suspended
Rights are normative claims — entitlements that impose duties on others — not descriptions of actual abilities or powers. Having a right to vote means others ought not prevent you from voting; it does not guarantee you have the means to do so. Confusing rights with abilities is a persistent error: a person in poverty has a right to food without necessarily having access to it. The right persists even when practical obstacles prevent its exercise.
Question 3 True / False
When a patient consents to surgery, they are abolishing their right to bodily autonomy for the duration of the procedure.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Consenting to surgery is an exercise of the right to bodily autonomy, not its abolition. Rights are waivable: right-holders can choose to permit what the right normally forbids. The right persists and protects all future interactions — the patient can revoke consent, and no one may operate on them again without new consent. Waiving is an expression of control over the right, not its elimination.
Question 4 True / False
Because rights trump ordinary consequentialist reasoning, they cannot be outweighed by any other moral consideration.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Rights function as trumps against ordinary cost-benefit calculations, but most rights theories recognize that rights can conflict with each other and that some rights are weightier than others. Near-absolute rights (against torture, against slavery) are extremely resistant to override; other rights (to a particular level of economic provision) are more susceptible to balancing. Rights-holders can also waive their rights. Saying rights trump consequences does not mean they are lexically prior to every moral consideration in every possible case.
Question 5 Short Answer
What does it mean to say that rights 'trump' consequences, and why do rights-based theories treat them this way?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: To say rights trump consequences means a right-holder's entitlement blocks a course of action even when that action would produce better overall outcomes. Rights-based theories treat them this way because rights protect fundamental interests or aspects of human dignity — things so important that they cannot be traded off for aggregate benefit. Without this trumping function, rights would collapse into ordinary reasons in a cost-benefit calculation and could always be overridden by sufficiently large consequences, making the concept of a right meaningless.
This is why rights-based ethics feels categorically different from consequentialism. For a consequentialist, any action is potentially justifiable given good enough outcomes. Rights-based theories say: no — some things cannot be done to a person regardless of the benefit to others. The right marks out a protected zone around the person that others must not enter, even for good reasons. Dworkin's 'trump' metaphor captures this: just as a trump card beats any card of another suit, a right beats ordinary moral calculations of benefit and harm.