ABSTRACT

The interest-based analysis of affirmative action was a more complex process because of the various interests that were in play. The skeptic's objection may be metaphysical; namely, it may deny the existence of objectively valid moral principles. According to the interest-based theory of rights, the libertarian position was found not to be justified. Libertarians are correct that some external goods are necessary in order to formulate and carry out a life plan. While a personal autonomy interest does ground rights to some property, it cannot ground absolute property rights in the face of competing claims to assistance that are also based on personal autonomy. The omnipresent possibility that a rights theory has been misapplied to a particular issue should not give rise to ample suspicion of the final results. In a deliberative democracy, there is certainly a place for the notion of moral rights in debates over public policy and social issues generally.