Execution nuance
Having a clear priority of ethics is useful, but execution of priorities is complicated. This gives a summary of some of the challenges faced.
One of the key points is people have to be virtuous for ethics to work - People are simply trying to be good and do good things. For me in this framework, some virtuous believes in all the rights listed (and more) and would try and make them happen, irrespective of order.
Democracy, power, and ethical trade-offs
Democracies rely on voting. The public loves their popular deontological rights and these are often taking priority by parties during elections. Disorting a parties preferred priorities with popularism.
Dictatorships operate differently. They can, and often do, have less of a focus on deontological rights.
Why execution is hard
Execution in general is difficult because even when people agree on goals, they disagree strongly on utilitarian trade-offs: how much cost is acceptable, who should bear it, and over what timeframe.
In large structures (like goverments are), by nature their talent will normally revert to the mean. Executing above average is very difficult.
Structures shape ethics
The structures we operate within are old. Legal systems, bureaucracies, markets, and international institutions embed historical ethical assumptions.
Sometimes these structures actively prevent certain ethical priorities from being expressed, regardless of intent. What looks like ethical disagreement is often structural limitation.
Rights eroding rights
For example safety policies often require surveillance, restrictions, enforcement, and discretion. Each introduces risk: abuse of power, mission creep, unequal enforcement, and chilling effects on speech.
If people believe enforcement is unfair, cooperation drops. When that happens, safety can decrease rather than increase.
There's lot of examples where deontological rights erode deontological, and ironically dismissing rights are the only way to improve them.
El Salvador is a "fun" example. They did mass arrests without due process to stop the crime in their country. A pure example of the only way of implementing their safety priority, was to temporarily disregard their legal priority.
Constraints are unavoidable
Even if you are morally certain about the destination, you still face constraints: budgets, institutional competence, political feasibility, international pressures, cultural norms, and time.
Your ethics change over time
Your ethical priorities are not static. They change with wealth, age, responsibility, and risk.
A child, a parent, and a retiree can hold the same core values yet prioritise safety, autonomy, or minimum standards differently.
Your ethics will also differ from your government’s. Governments operate at scale, manage legitimacy, and absorb systemic risk. Individuals can afford nuance that states often cannot.