interference. Historically self interest and l^j! ^^t^^t^ot^-^nds where
mjusticebegms.

The British philosopher W.D. Ross has offered a theory that each of us has many
simultaneous obligations, none of which are absolute. Ross says there is no
prearranged hierarchy of superior and inferior duties. Instead, we have many
simultaneous duties that include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence.
self-improvement, the duty not to injure others and the duty to seek the greater
good.

Here our duties are seen not as absolutes, but as rival obligations that must be
traded off; they must be judiciously applied by morally conscientious individuals.
This reasoning may well apply to rights also. If we believe there to be more and
more "rights" tfaat entitle us to more and more things beyond compromise of
negotiation, then we may be following a recipe for unyielding dogmatism and
unpleasant standoffs that bring out the worst rather than the best in us.

Clearly then, the emphasis on rights can go too far. Even Constitutional rights can

conflict with each other, as when the First Amendment rights of the press affect the

^
^


