Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if we try our hardest to avoid it. We're told to think positive, and not be negative. This means not creating conflict, and not getting into conflicts. But what happens when someone is wrong, or if we're wrong? Should be avoid arguing to get to a common understanding of something simply because it's viewed as engaging in a conflict? Does the truth not matter?
Source
With all the conflict in the world both in the present and in the past of human history, it can be easy to draw a conclusion that this will be how things continue into the future. Will we ever have peace? Does having peace or trying to achieve peace mean there can be no conflict? For some, peace means there is no conflict. But what about truth, responsibility and justice mattering more?
If we're looking to get justice and freedom in the world, then there will be conflict because there are some who don't want this to happen. According to Ian Spears of the University of Guelph, conflict is necessary to achieve justice. We have to decide what matters more: peace or justice. When trying to get justice, there is going to be conflict. When trying to get more freedom, there is going to be conflict. If someone views peace as the absence of conflict, then forget about fighting for justice or freedom.
When the focus is on peace, it ignored the drive for justice. To set things right and apply consequences to wrong-doings and wrong-doers. To make things fair when things are unfair, you can't simply have "peace" as the absence of fighting. An equitable society requires justice to bring freedom and real peace to fruition. Managing conflicts is required in order to bring justice before peace can truly be achieved.
Putting peace above injustice seems to preserve the status quo of those in power as conflict of the inequities and injustices are not dealt with. This means the conflict will always be there, but unaddressed. Peace comes after justice is achieved. Otherwise the situation remains unstable at the root level despite the nice fluffy sunshine and rainbow appearances.
The stability of a peace must rest on justice being achieved for the conflict to end. Justice requires things to change, and that pressure to change will have tension, resistance, instability and conflict in order to get to the peace being desired.
There isn't only physical conflict, but also verbal and written conflicts to being about change that ensures justice and truth prevail. When we argue with people about something that needs to change, that's a conflict. There is a misalignment and disharmony between people, but can be resolved.
Championing for a cause involves the conflict of arguments. That's how we can influence other and get them to change. Without that conflict, there is no possibility of change. The desire to "keep the peace" by avoiding conflict will not bring about change, but just keep things as they are and force everyone to "get along".
There is too much fear of negative situations, too much focus on "positivity" that people hide behind like a mask in order to avoid conflicts. Problems are being ignored because it easier to ignore it, deny it or dismiss it in favor of being non-conflicting and appearing "peaceful". Contentious topics are being condemned and targeted for censorship as "fake news".
If conflicts are to be resolved, then discussion are argumentation needs to take place where information is shared. When people do things that affect others, everyone needs to address what happened and try to come to a resolution by recognizing what has happened, not ignoring it. Ignoring, denying or dismissing the problems around us won't bring justice to our lives or the world.
Sure, sometimes someone or a group can feel wronged when nothing was done to them. Or sometimes others can deny how they actions affected others. But that doesn't mean a mutual sharing of information can't take place to argue the points and come to a resolution. If that is not even done, if that stage of conflict is not even engaged in, then there is little chance of a resolution or justice ever being achieved. And then forget about real peace.
Arguing can be healthy if people care about finding the truth of the matter, not simply defending their attachments. If truth is the goal, then everyone can come to understand what is true and finally align and be on the same page to move forward. But that takes time, energy, effort, dedication, determination and persistence to go through so much information. Yet, it's possible to do. And when it's done, we can cooperate together better than before.
Source
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page.
too many of us want our Utopian views...
You can take the saying can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs waaaaaay too far, but the point is you have to crack eggs if you want omelette.
And I would much rather have justice than peace...in fact, I have a pre-existing hostile bias to the idea of peace because peace has been held up as the ideal so many times when the pursuit of peace has stabbed Justice in the back.
It is due to the desire for peace that so many good men do nothing. It has devastated the country I know.
it goes back to a pretty common impulse in man
dont rock the boat
I understand it, I just don't like it
Peace only through justice.
thats it right there.
is there really peace w/o justice?
(oh lord, please forgive me for the no justice, no peace chant)
I'm doing a quote from me
"People want to be at peace with the world but inside their head, there is war with themselves. I prefer the opposite. :).Inner peace and war with the world."
Constructive discussion in conflicts leads to a consensus, a healthy recognition, and solution of conflicts of interests, under a frame of humanity, creativity, aesthetic and ethical values.
I've rarely so strongly agreed with you, despite agreeing with you often.
I have recently been educated some about this, as I was assaulted with a knife by someone who's enmity I had ignored to the extent possible. The visiting relatives of a neighbor I had befriended dissuaded the assailant, possibly saving my life.
Absent confronting the obstreperous party, where I could have established some reduction in animosity, their resentment and ire simply grew stronger until they were drunk enough to disrupt the public peace.
One thing that struck me about this event was that ignoring conflict as I did actually made it worse, and potentiated harm to more people, such as the little children who might have observed their grandmother's friend bleeding out in the street if their daddy hadn't been ready, willing and able to prevent it.
I believe this was my fault, due to my arrogance and conceit regarding my tolerance. I am now preparing to institute means of preparing for future assaults that I have in the past considered a burden that I, and I alone, bore. The stark truth is that if I don't personally act to nip such escalation of conflict in the bud, innocent children might suffer as a result, and neither my conceit nor my sharp tongue protects them absent other preparations.
We all have a duty to preserve the peace, and that means we must be prepared to deal with those who insist on disturbing it, lest those disturbances harm innocents we are obligated to protect.
Thanks!
Not sure if it is your fault for avoiding the conflict with someone who seems to have issues and lost it with the devil's juice. Being prepared for violent potentials is always helpful. Sometimes walking away is the only way to prevent conflicts from escalating, as some only want to dominate or control and don't want peace :/
Peace is only the imposition of a dominant group over another dominated group that does not have the will to fight. The conflict is necessary, it is part of our essence as humans, we must fight for what we consider correct, not for nothing the figure of the warrior has been seen by our ancestors as the most glorious form of heroism. But as I mentioned in another text that you published, there is a set of principles and false current precepts that are not letting us see clearly.
That's not only what it is, it just happens that way in the dominating world we have created for ourselves. Do you not have peace with your partner? Are you at war and unable to cooperate with everyone around you? I think not ;) Physical conflict and war isn't a necessity though ;)
Then why does the conflict exist if it is not necessary? Wherever I look there seems to be a battle for something or someone.
Maybe it's just my perception.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Ways you can help the @informationwar
the problem is people who are wrong don't have good arguments so they just try to silence or shout down those who disagree with them and they are not open to real discussions because of the cognitive dissonance created by believing things that are untrue.
No justice, no peace.
People often think they're right and argue too. Some fight for justice but are ignored by those who don't want to recognize a wrong being done. Take slavery of humans and non humans. People have and still argue against that point of justice, because they don't want to see anything wrong being done.
animals wouldn't know what to do with money if you paid them.
A good healthy debate is wonderful. But the spirit in which it is done is important. Hearts and minds must be open to the truth. Both sides must be willing to listen as well as talk. Only then can conflict be good. - Thanks @krnel.
Yes, that's a problem in all ages, as ppl get attached to what they do, and don't want to look at it objectively and honestly. They just defend their actions because it's theirs.
I'm going to take the nihilist position on this one. What is peace? What is justice? How can we achieve either if we can't even agree on their definitions? Justice, much like its kin morality and the right/wrong dichotomy, is an abstract and relative concept dependent upon perspective. It's not like you can isolate a molecule of justice, point at it and yell "We have it!"
Peace suffers from much the same issues. Is it simply the absence of conflict? All of humanity living in harmony and without strife? Or that of the graveyard, beyond the reach of pain, suffering, and despair? Does it even exist outside of utopian daydreams? How would we even recognize it if we encountered it?
If history has taught me anything it is that conflict begets conflict. Sometimes the ends justify the means, usually not. If both sides are fighting for their own conception of justice, is the losing side not going to be convinced that they were denied justice and thus justified in further disturbing the peace to achieve it? How does one stop this perpetual and vicious cycle?
Actions exist in reality. Actions are objective. Reducing everything to non human aspects in order to qualify them as objective is a fallacy. Moral evaluations of actions are based on harm being done. Harm can be evaluated and measured. It takes consciousness to do so, just as it does to measure anything else and communicate that measurement.
Agreed. However the motivations, justifications, and interpretations of those actions are subjective.
If it's not objective, what distinguishes it from mere opinion?
Whose morals, yours or mine? Harm suffers from the same issues with definition. What constitutes harm? Upon what objective and universal standard can it be evaluated and measured?
Indeed. Just as anything else above basic functions does. Consciousness is also the source of the disagreement over terms.
586/5000
You have all the right though there are times that despite not agreeing the parties come to be understood by mutual respect but as your post says it is better to seek the best measures to deal with conflicts always be in search of the truth because whatever the subject is always better discuss it and everyone has their point of view that although we may not like at first may be the solution for the common good the important thing is to maintain an open mind and the necessary maturity to accept that you are wrong both in life and in politics Thank you very much for sharing
truth is the goal very rarely)
as a rul it's a way of self-determination and self-demonstration but they all try to seem like truth-seekers;)