Natural rights theory often struggles to offer a clear and actionable framework for resolving conflicts between competing rights. It posits that certain rights are inherent and inalienable, derived from natural law and not contingent on societal structures or governmental approval. However, the abstraction that makes natural rights appealing also poses challenges in practical application, particularly when rights collide.

One illustrative example is the tension between the right to individual liberty and the right to security. While natural rights theory firmly upholds the principle that individuals should be free from unwarranted constraints, it does not inherently specify how to mediate situations where unrestricted liberty could jeopardize public safety. For instance, governmental measures such as emergency curfews or lockdowns during crises often restrict personal freedoms to safeguard community well-being. Here, natural rights theory does not offer a definitive guide for balancing these concerns, leaving room for subjective interpretation.

Another significant challenge arises in public health debates, such as the question of mandatory vaccinations. This issue pits the right to health and communal welfare against the right to personal autonomy. From a natural rights perspective, one could argue that the right to refuse medical treatment is an essential expression of bodily autonomy and liberty. Conversely, the right to health for the community implies that individuals should take measures that prevent harm to others, such as participating in vaccination programs to curb the spread of diseases. Natural rights theory often falls short in providing clear guidelines on how to prioritize these rights, making it difficult to justify or challenge mandatory public health policies purely on the basis of natural rights.

Such dilemmas expose a core limitation of natural rights theory: its reliance on broad principles without a built-in mechanism for prioritization or adjudication when rights are in direct conflict. While rights such as life, liberty, and property are championed as foundational, real-world scenarios frequently require trade-offs. Without a framework for balancing these rights, natural rights theory risks becoming more of a philosophical ideal than a tool for practical governance or conflict resolution.

However, while natural rights theory may not provide a step-by-step guide for adjudicating rights conflicts, it establishes a clear hierarchy of values that can be applied to resolve these conflicts. Natural rights theory acknowledges that the right to life, for instance, is paramount and underpins all other rights. From this perspective, when liberty and security come into conflict, the prioritization of rights can be discerned by assessing which rights preserve or infringe upon foundational principles such as life and basic safety. Thus, a well-reasoned approach within natural rights theory would assert that some restrictions on liberty may be justified if they protect individuals’ rights to life and security.

The defense of natural rights theory also rests on its robust protection of individual liberty against encroachment. This theory fundamentally resists the collectivist or utilitarian tendencies that can lead to majoritarian rule overriding the rights of individuals. For instance, in public health debates such as mandatory vaccinations, the principle of bodily autonomy embedded in natural rights serves as a crucial safeguard against policies that might otherwise overreach, eroding personal choice and setting precedents for state control over individual bodies. Even when conflicts arise, natural rights theory urges that solutions be sought without infringing on this core value, thereby preventing a slippery slope of diminishing freedoms.

Natural rights theory’s commitment to moral absolutism, which provides an ethical anchor that does not bend to cultural or political expediency, is essential. This absolutism ensures that rights such as life, liberty, and property are upheld regardless of societal trends. Without such an anchor, rights could be subject to erosion as political priorities shift. In contrast, natural rights theory emphasizes that rights are inherent and universal, rooted in the shared nature of human beings, thereby offering a consistent framework for both personal and legal advocacy.

History is replete with examples where the appeal to natural rights has fueled significant social and political advancements. The American Declaration of Independence and subsequent human rights movements leveraged the power of natural rights to assert the inviolability of human liberty and equality. While natural rights theory may not micromanage every conflict between rights, its broad principles have guided nations in crafting constitutions and laws that respect and uphold the dignity of individuals. This foundational aspect supports robust debate and policymaking aimed at finding a just balance between conflicting rights while maintaining fidelity to overarching moral truths.

The broad, immutable principles of natural rights theory are not meant to exist in a vacuum but should be applied with reason and prudence. It provides a moral compass, and it is through thoughtful deliberation and philosophical inquiry that societies can navigate rights conflicts. For instance, debates around public health and individual autonomy can be enriched by natural rights arguments that emphasize proportionality, the necessity of protecting life, and the least infringement on liberty. This approach does not reject natural rights theory but rather applies it in a way that honors both its foundational values and the complexities of modern society.

In conclusion, while natural rights theory may not spell out the precise mechanisms for every situation where rights conflict, its power lies in defining the non-negotiable aspects of human existence and freedom. It sets a high standard that compels society to justify limitations and seek the least intrusive solutions. Far from being a flaw, the theory’s emphasis on immutable rights ensures that debates about policy and conflict resolution remain anchored in respect for human dignity, creating a moral floor below which society should not fall.