So I, for one, don’t accept the division of the case for freedom into “the moral” and “the practical.” It’s a mistake, not to mention harmful to the cause. But does this mean I am a consequentialist, or utilitarian? Heavens no! The consequentialist case for freedom is too insecure. How would you feel if someone said, “I will respect your rights to life, liberty, and property so long as I calculate that doing so will produce the greatest good”? The classic monkey wrench in the utilitarian machine is the question whether one person may morally be killed so that his harvested organs may save the lives of five others?
.. utilitarianism is fatally flawed. Rejecting it, however, does not obligate one to embrace deontology, or “rules fetishism.” ..
.. both sides of the artificial moral-practical divide need each other if the strongest case for freedom is to be proffered.