Dagger 4-5

In the beginning of chapter 4, Dagger (it seems to me) is attempting a task very similar to that of Thomson. Both authors attempt to determine under what circumstances rights can be overridden or how to deal with a conflict of rights. As we read, Thomson utilized the trolley example to set forth her explanation for how to deal with a conflict of rights, and Dagger deals with arguments of necessity, efficiency, side effects, and reciprocity in an attempt to deal with a similar question (although, for Dagger, the question does not deal with the ordering of individual rights but instead with organizing the rights of citizens against noncitizens). My question is this: what would Dagger say to Thomson, and what would Thomson say to Dagger? Are the ideas that each author espouses compatible, or are they entirely different? Are their any similarities between their positions?

Also, when discussing the argument for efficiency, Dagger writes: "We know that there are men, women, and children in this world who are living, and dying, in desperate poverty. We also know that we can take some steps to help them. And if my account of the right of the right of autonomy is correct, we know too, that we have a responsibility to go to their aid" (44). If this (the idea that the fundamental right to autonomy requires us to aid others in need) is true, how does Dagger explain individuals who are ignorant about genocide, poverty, etc. or individuals who know about these problems, have the means to assist, and decline to help? Would Dagger say that these individuals are refusing to recognize the duty that comes with the right to autonomy, would he say that they are simply not recognizing the right to autonomy, or would he say something completely different?