The hierarchy strategy goes like this: It is assumed that two

or more values cannot be achieved together. S

o it is fitting to ask: Which value should be considered?
The answer is obvious: The more important one. Hence,
from hierarchical ranking of values, a decision is made.

The problem with hierarchical thinking is that conflicting
values do not always neatly form hierarchies.
In other words, it is not always obvious that of two
conflicting actions or policies, one will guarantee a rich
result or reflect a more fundamental value than the other.

The basis of the strategy of dissolution of conflict is the
development of alternatives that avoid the problem.
If tension is due to divergence without conflict, then it is
possible to accommodate the divergence by doing both.
If tension is due to undesirable sets of consequences of
either of the two alternative courses, where there is still a
third or fourth course of action, then avoid the first two
courses.
If a conflict arises between two aims owing to the present
circumstances, then change the circumstances so that,
despite divergence, there is no longer conflict between the
two aims.
This strategy to resolve value conflicts, in other words, is
built upon flexibility at all levels.

The strategy of compromise proposes that:
everyone should be agreeable to some benefits
every party should be ranked equally
not all values may be achieved

A. The Fraenkel Approach

Step 1: Conflict What is the dilemma?
(Social, personal,
interpersonal,intergroup)
Step 2: Choice of Action What are alternative actions that can
be taken to resolve the conflict?
Step 3: Effects For each alternative action, what are the effects
which are likely to happen?
Step 4: Results What results can be obtained from those
effects? What are the proofs?
Step 5: Judgment Which result is better? What are the criteria for
the choice?
Step 6: Decision on Action What is the decision?


B. The Coomb Approach

Step 1: Conflict What has actually happened? Is it a
conflict?
Step 2: Identification What are the values in conflict?
(e.g. between responsibility and justice}
Step 3: Fact-gathering List the facts that are present in the
conflict.
Step 4: Fact-evaluating Evaluate each fact. Is it true or false?
Step 5: Relevance of facts Find the facts that are relevant to the
criteria and choose alternative actions.
Step 6: Decision From the facts being evaluated, make a really
good and definite decision to resolve the conflict.
Step 7: Test moral principle Test the moral principles
present in the decision taken on value and action.