Peter Singer

But yes, you should certainly have said, please put your seatbelt on.

I know the chances of me having an accident are small, but it's worth it.

So you use the language, I have the right, and that is a language that some people will take as ending the discussion completely because they think that rights are absolute and overriding and inviolable.

But consequentialists will be prepared to talk about rights in various ways, and they may think, yes, we should establish systems of rights, things that people should...

Virtually never do.

Create a high barrier against anybody violating somebody's rights.

Those are important things.

But they won't regard that as the end of the discussion.

And I would certainly say, yes, you have the right to do that.

Let's say that I do agree that you have the right to do that.

Suppose you're not in my car, maybe you're riding a motorbike and you say, I like to have my long hair streaming out behind me in the wind.

And I have a right to do that.

And I know I'm taking a risk and I might be killed, but it's fine and I'm prepared to do it.

Now, you could argue reasonably plausibly that, okay, it's better if we let people take responsibility for those kinds of choices that are not going to harm others, if we assume that's not going to harm others.

But we can still discuss it with them.

We can still say, look, you know,

Have you been to hospitals where you've seen people who have been riding motorbikes and had brain injuries and they've turned into basically just lying there and making a few noises?

Is it really worth it to take the risk of being like that in the end?

There are other cases I could give you where I think it's clear that when somebody says, I have a right, we might want to object.

Suppose somebody is wealthy enough to have bought a great work of art, whatever it might be, a great painting, let's say.