Five patients will die without organ transplants. One healthy person's organs could save all five. A utilitarian calculates that harvesting the organs produces more total welfare. A rights theorist says this is impermissible. What is the rights theorist's core reason?
AFive lives are not worth more than one life in utilitarian calculations either
BThe individual's rights function as side-constraints that cannot be overridden by aggregate welfare calculations — the arithmetic simply does not apply to rights violations
CRights theorists oppose organ transplants in general on deontological grounds
DThe utilitarian calculation is incorrect because it ignores second-order effects like fear and distrust
Nozick's key move is that rights are side-constraints, not values to be maximized. You cannot violate one person's rights to prevent five others' rights from being violated — the arithmetic doesn't apply. The healthy person's right to bodily integrity defines a boundary that agents must not cross regardless of consequences. The individual is not a resource available for others' benefit; their separateness as a person is exactly what rights protect. Option D is a utilitarian response (taking consequences seriously), not a rights-theoretic one.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Nozick describes rights as 'side-constraints.' What does this mean, and how does it differ from treating rights as values to be maximized?
ASide-constraints means rights are secondary considerations that yield when welfare stakes are high enough
BSide-constraints means rights define boundaries on permissible action that must be respected regardless of how good the consequences of violating them would be
CSide-constraints means rights are constraints on government action only, not on individuals
DSide-constraints means rights have diminishing weight as the number of rights-violations prevented by the infringement increases
Nozick's side-constraint view holds that rights are not goals to be optimized (a utilitarian might try to 'minimize rights violations' as one variable in a calculation) but rather boundaries that define the space within which action must occur. You do not weigh a rights violation against the good it produces and choose whichever is larger. Rights are categorical constraints: they must be respected. Violating one person's rights to prevent several others from being violated is prohibited because rights-talk is not aggregable in that way.
Question 3 True / False
Rights-based ethics holds that individual rights cannot be overridden simply because overriding them would produce better outcomes for more people.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is the defining commitment of rights-based ethics that distinguishes it from consequentialism. Rights function as trumps or side-constraints against aggregate welfare calculations. The individual's rights must be respected even when, by the numbers, violation would improve overall outcomes. This is why the forced organ redistribution case is such a clear test: a utilitarian calculation might favor it, but a rights theorist must reject it because the healthy person's rights are violated regardless of how many people benefit.
Question 4 True / False
Rights-based ethical theories are committed to the view that most rights are absolute and cannot be overridden under any circumstances.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is explicitly listed as a misconception. Most rights theories allow that rights can be overridden in extreme circumstances — self-defense, for example, may permit killing an aggressor despite their right not to be harmed. The claim is not that rights are absolute but that they set a high threshold that consequentialist calculation alone cannot meet. Threshold deontology formalizes this: rights can be overridden only when the stakes are catastrophically high, not merely when the aggregate benefit of violation is marginally positive.
Question 5 Short Answer
What does Nozick mean by rights as 'side-constraints,' and how does this differ from treating rights as values to be maximized?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Nozick's side-constraint view holds that rights are not items in a welfare function to be maximized or minimized — they are constraints on action that define what agents may and may not do. A utilitarian might frame the goal as 'minimize total rights violations,' which could license violating one person's rights to prevent five violations elsewhere. Nozick rejects this: rights define the boundary of permissible action and cannot be crossed regardless of the aggregate calculus. Each person's rights must be respected because each person is a separate individual, not a vessel for aggregate welfare. The difference is between rights as a constraint on the space of permissible options versus rights as one consideration to be weighed against outcomes.
The side-constraint view captures the intuition that there is something categorically different about being wronged — having your rights violated — versus merely being worse off. A mugger who steals your wallet to donate the proceeds to charity has violated your rights even though the outcome might be good overall. Rights-talk is not welfare-talk: it concerns what others may do to you, not what outcome results. This is why Nozick's view is resistant to the utilitarian aggregation strategy.