Ok, I'll start with the most simplified of the three

Ok, I'll start with the most simplified of the three. Despite it's simplified form it's representative of resource conflicts that happen every day.

So you have what is essentially a Mexican standoff. Two substantially identical families in a desert. There's one well within a survivable distance (so one family can't just leave). That well will only support one family. If they try to share, everyone dies. Both families are new to the area & neither owns the well.

So what's going on here when it comes to rights? (assume each family acts only in accordance with their rights)

I can see a few lines of reasoning (maybe you can come up with others).

Both families desire to remain living.

Both families have the right to remain living.

Both families have the right to defend their lives through force.

In this case both the right to live & the right to defend are in conflict given that both families cannot exercise their rights at the same time.

End result: one family lives, the other dies.

Both families desire to remain living.

Both families have the right to remain living.

Neither family has the right to defend their lives through force (murder).

Force (murder) occurs through the action OR inaction of one family against another (i.e. actively killing the other family or allowing the other family to die of thirst)

In this case the right to live is in conflict. (sort of, see my comments near the end)

Now, if you have the right to live, but not the right to defend, you have a problem. Any action you take to prevent the other family from using the well is murder. Therefore, your only option is to allow the other family access (i.e. sharing).

The other family should come to the same conclusion.

End result: both families die.

Both families desire to remain living.

Both families have the right to remain living.

Neither family has the right to defend their lives through force (murder).

Force (murder) occurs through the action of one family against another (i.e. actively killing the other family)

Force (murder) does NOT occurs through inaction (i.e. allowing the other family to die of thirst)

In this case both the right to live & the right to defend through inaction are in conflict.

So one family can defend the well by driving off the other family until they die of thirst.

End result: one family lives, the other dies.

------------------------

Force (murder) with regards to action vs. inaction

I would say that murder via action is fairly clear cut. But when is inaction also murder? At what point do you draw the line & say that inaction is not murder? How much of a sacrifice (in time, effort, money, etc.) is required?

Say it's a continuum. You can prevent a death by:

Standing there & blinking

Walking across the street

Walking down the block

Running 1 mile

Sustaining a minor injury

Sustaining a major injury

Sustaining an injury that causes permanent disability

Giving up your own life

So where's the line?

------------------------

So which line of reasoning makes the most sense? Do any of them? A combination? Why?

It seems to me that you can remove the rights conflict by making one of the following arguments:

The right to live & defend are not actual rights.

One family has these rights & the other doesn't.

Rights are not relevant in this case.

If the right to live & defend are not actual rights, what are they? And why?

Is a right that cannot be exercised and/or will be (unavoidably) violated still a right? Why?

Why would one family have more rights than the other? Especially given that they are substantially identical. Is the family that dies retroactively stripped of their rights? [this would seem a convenient excuse for those who wish to violate others rights. It's a setup for "he with the most power to win has the most rights" (winner takes all). Not a good thing in my book.]

Both families may have the right to live, but reality steps in and says that one of them isn't going to get to live no matter what their rights are. So are rights relevant? Do we want to make the argument that rights are invalid when they cannot help but be violated? (I don't)

If they have the right to live, but no right to defend their lives they may as well not have the right to live. So what do they have the right to do in defense? And is that effective?

Or is all of this just one big fat tragedy where the rights of one or both families are being violated by fate?

In the scenario with the least conflict both families die. Is that ok? Why?

------------------------

If you still feel that rights are not in conflict despite the fact that both families cannot exercise their rights at the same time please explain why.

------------------------

Now change the scenario slightly.

1. Family A owns the well. Family B is a newcomer to the area that arrived without water. (Does it matter why they have no water? Poor planning, accident, etc. Why?)

2. Family A owns the well. Family B owns another well nearby that has dried up.

Does this change anything? Do you apply a different line of reasoning? Do rights change? Why?

(This feels like it should change things. It feels like family A now has more rights than family B.)

The outcomes are still the same. Death/murder is still going to happen. So why is it different?