In Boer et al. (viz. [9]) we argued that evaluation of draft legislation, change from an old to a new regime, harmonization of legislation from multiple jurisdictions, and the decision to move a good, person, or service over the borders of a jurisdiction, involves a process of integration and comparison of preference structures. This paper argues that legal norms are in many contexts best understood as expressions of a ceteris paribus preference, and that this viewpoint adequately accounts for normative conflict and contrary-to-duty norms.