- One party's right to X may be stronger than another party's right to X. The stronger right should be respected in a conflict. (Someone might argue that a sentient fetus has a right to ife but that it is not as strong as an adult woman's right to life.)
- One party's right to X may be more important or weighty than another party's right to Y. Again, in a conflict, the more important right should be respected. (For example, one party's
right to life seems more weighty than another party's right to,
say, peace and quiet. But how do we decide in general which right
is stronger?)
- The rights of a fully developed person take precedence over
those of a partially developed person. (But why?)
- The rights of the higher order being should be respected.
(We sometimes say this about conflicts between people and animals.
If we only had food for one party, we would give it to a person
rather than a horse.)
- The more fundamental right should be respected. Someone might argue that the right
to live is more fundamental than the right to control one's body.
- The rights of the weaker party should be protected. (This
inclination often seems correct in political conflicts between,
say, rich and poor.)
- If only one party can be compensated, then we should compensate
that party for their loss and honor the rights of the party that
cannot be compensated. (This avoids either party losing everything.)
- Choose a right to honor based on what will do the most good.
(This is essentially a utilitarian criterion for deciding conflicts
between rights.)
|