The doctrine of 'rights as trumps' is a powerful concept in political philosophy, most famously articulated by Ronald Dworkin. It posits that individual rights are not merely preferences or interests to be weighed against collective goals or utilitarian calculations, but rather they function as 'trumps' – overriding claims that take precedence over other considerations, especially those based on aggregate welfare or the common good.

In a game of cards, a trump card beats any card of another suit. Similarly, Dworkin argues that when an individual has a right, it means that society cannot infringe upon that right, even if doing so would lead to a greater overall benefit for the majority. For example, the right to free speech cannot be suppressed simply because a majority finds certain expressions offensive or believes that suppressing them would lead to a more harmonious society. The right 'trumps' the collective preference.

Key aspects of 'rights as trumps':

1. Protection of Minorities: This doctrine is particularly crucial for protecting the rights of individuals and minority groups against the tyranny of the majority. It ensures that fundamental liberties are not sacrificed for the sake of collective utility or popular opinion.
2. Moral Foundation: Dworkin grounds rights in the principle of 'equal concern and respect' for all individuals. He argues that a government must treat its citizens with equal concern and respect, and this requires recognizing certain fundamental rights that cannot be overridden by collective goals.
3. Limits on Government Power: The concept places significant limits on governmental action. It implies that the state cannot justify policies that violate individual rights, even if those policies are democratically enacted or aim to achieve a desirable social outcome.
4. Judicial Review: The 'rights as trumps' doctrine provides a strong justification for judicial review, where courts can strike down legislation that infringes upon fundamental rights, even if that legislation reflects the will of the majority. Judges, in this view, are tasked with upholding these 'trumping' rights against legislative or executive overreach.
5. Distinction from Goals: Dworkin distinguishes between 'rights' and 'goals.' Goals are collective aims (e.g., economic prosperity, public safety) that can be pursued by aggregating individual interests. Rights, however, are individual claims that cannot be sacrificed for the sake of achieving these collective goals.

Critiques and Implications: While influential, the doctrine is not without its critics. Some argue that it can lead to an overly individualistic society, where collective action is hampered by an excessive focus on individual claims. Others question how to determine which rights are 'trumps' and how to resolve conflicts between competing rights. Despite these challenges, 'rights as trumps' remains a powerful conceptual tool for understanding the foundational importance of individual rights in liberal democracies, emphasizing their non-negotiable status in the face of utilitarian or majoritarian pressures.