Perspectives on conflicts and disputes Essay

Legal positivists postulate that individuals are intrinsically greedy, which is the main root of conflicts among them. Thomas Hobbes posits that beings are doomed to dispute because of their primeval nature, which is deduced to selfishness that causes them to struggle to maintain their social status. In this milieu, Charles Darwin furthered this stance by conjecturing that species’ selfish ways are embedded to their genes because life is nothing but a struggle for survival. To curtail this selfishness, law is of necessity because only it provides rules and restrictions to protect the interest and upholds the rights of each individual. The advancement on the epistemological aspect of conflict starts at the ontogenetic condition of the specie and continues in its phylogenetic condition. Ontogenetic state means that the being develops from the conception of its genes up to the end of its life cycle. Conversely, phylogenetic event transpires in between of the beings conception and death, meaning the individual develops throughout the time it exists. Therefore, Homo sapiens understanding of conflict’s anatomy begins at phylogenetic level and its full comprehension happens when Homo sapiens reaches the end of ontogenetic level. The epistemic acquisition of conflicts thrives in human playground or to events and settings that necessitates human actions and interactions. Conflicts undergo a succession that perpetually exists within the life-world of beings such as their surroundings, environment, politics, business, science, etc. Having drawn this conclusion, we can infer that in existing innumerable of conflicts there is a myriad of ways of resolving it. Conflict is impossible to annihilate because of the following reasons: first, it thrives at the very heart of human volition, which is the source of human selfishness, and second, it has been part of human psyche to transfer it from one generation to the other, which resulted to a vicious cycle within the epistemic system of conflict. And throughout history, individuals have learned the art of conflict, and some even mastered the usage of conflict in their everyday lives. Handling conflict is very vital to human existence because it can totally change the landscape of one’s own existence. The coming of twentieth century proved that beings are becoming more and more aware of how to comprehend the nitty-gritty details of conflict, and what are the effective means of handling conflicts. There is no panacea that will medicate continuous existence of conflict, but humans strive to find a better solution to satisfy the needs of a prominent conflict because they are challenged by the difficulty it embodies. It must be noted that conflict is getting more complicated as time passes by, which means that better solution must be concocted to counter-attack more severe problem. The vastness of the universe implies a far more serious condition because the contingency of the world can necessitate an unknown conflict, which greatly needs a novel constructs or to put it simply, man has to go out of the box to resolve a new or unknown prevailing issue. This kind of conflict serves a greater challenge to human reason because it is something that our very reason has not yet encountered. The enigmatic characteristic of such new issues demands transcendence in our rationality. Using Karl Marx philosophical stance, we can infer that conflict has a crisis-response blueprint or a thesis-antithesis pattern. Multiplicity of conflicts has evolved into a more complex manner within the continuum of time, as well as the individual effort to manage and to elucidate it. In order for a human specie to understand the mechanism of conflict, he/she must know its intrinsic values, and in doing so, he/she can decipher appropriate solution for different conflicts. The epicentre of conflict lies on the innate nature of man and its solution lies on the rules that have been drawn to curb the natural operation of human volition. Development is the life-source of conflict, ironically speaking, the more we formulate means to make life easier the more we recognize new conflicts. In the primeval condition of humanity the only existing problem is the source of food, and then it further develops into the issue of territory, and finally when men resolved these issues another conflict sprouted when they realized the significance of property. The birth of science and technology intensified the man’s struggle to annihilate conflicts. Science and technology successfully medicated the prevailing conflicts of our society but it also paved for the birth of novel conflicts, and in some condition aggravated an existing issue. As of this modern day period, science and technology provides a myriad of solutions in human crises in the field of poverty, education and medicine. But it also exacerbates war between nations because technology brings forth weaponry of mass destruction. Man by Nature is Selfish According to Richard Dawkins introduction in his book The Selfish Gene, man’s attitude is greatly affected and designed by our genetic composition. Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature – the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness? At the onset of Dawkins book, he clearly stipulated that all species either man or animals are machines fashioned by their genetic design. As mentioned earlier, Hobbes believes that men are naturally born selfish, and it is the same in Dawkins case. According to him, the selfishness of man is deeply embedded in our genes, and due to this we must learn the virtue of generosity and altruism because if we failed to do so, men will perpetually live on catastrophic state. Dawkins stance must not be misconstrued as an ethical justification of human behaviour or a moral treatise that must be followed since his insight is loud and clear; that men are selfish because of their genes, no more, no less. Having said this, it is a challenge for us to control it if not exterminate it because we are the only species who can desired to do it. In the furtherance of man’s selfish genes, Dawkins incorporated Darwin’s biological conjecture that man is doomed for the battle of its own survival. However, the former believes that survival is not controlled by man; rather man is machinated by genes to strive for its own survival. The genes are the building blocks of human existence, it is the one that created us, and these genes even dictates how we should reason out. Men are innately selfish for the sole reason of life preservation or prolongation. They are willing to do everything just to ensure that their interests are satisfied. Satisfaction of interest is tantamount to the validation of one existence. This is the embodiment of human existence, chaotic and full of struggle. The machination of individual is further elucidated by Dawkins through his explanation of gene mechanism. Dawkins adopted G. C. Williams’ definition of genes, which stated that gene any portion of chromosomal material that potentially last for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection . The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of man thrives within our body. It must be noted that DNA is not contained in a particular body parts rather it is widely disseminated within our cells. Approximately speaking, a human body is made of a thousand million cells, and each of these cells contains an exact blueprint of all DNA in our body. The significance of the ontogenetic control of genes is its capability of self-continuation and self-propagation, meaning, genes can preserve itself under the condition of numerous struggles. The survival of genes lies on the efficiency and power of our corporeal body, which they inhabit for its own development. The existence of each human species is not everlasting, it is ephemeral. Dawkins uses an analogy wherein each card in a deck represents the genes. According to him, when a deck of card are being shuffled they undergo a process of survival. And this process of survival is exactly the mechanism of genes wherein every time they are shuffled a gene only assumes the position of another gene, instead of being destroyed, and after the shuffling process genes are still genes that continue to march on. Dawkins draws a conclusion from this analogy, which stated that genes are basically the replicators and we are their machinery for survival. And when we have fulfilled our function we are automatically became useless, but gene will perpetuate its existence because it is a denizen of geological time . In view of that, Dawkins also posits that gene is the basic unit of survival because it competes for its own preservation against their alleles for a slot in the chromosome. With this picture, we can infer that genes struggle for survival of future generation in the gene pool in the expense of its own alleles. Therefore, selfishness is indeed the fundamental foundation of selfishness. The genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their lives. They are judged according to the success of their programs in copying with all the hazards that life throws at their survival machines, and the judge is the ruthless judge of the court of survival . This phrase only strengthened Dawkins claims that man is nothing but a machinery of genes for its own survival. As pointed earlier, man is different from other specie because a human being has a will power and reason, meaning man can go against the dictate of its gene i. e. a person can choose not to reproduce. In addition, reason has its own domain wherein it has the capability to manipulate habitual operation of gene machine, to envisage what lies beyond its own future, and most significantly, to act according to its own course of nature. Because of rationality, gene machinery is able to be in command of outlining what direction individuals must follow. Rationality can curtail the dictate of gene, meaning, a person can transcend his/her selfishness and reach the condition of being generous and altruistic. The emancipation of man from his selfish nature is only possible if and only if he succumb himself to an agreement. Being established that human beings to be innately selfish also indicate that they are self-regulating. But generosity and altruism can only be actualized if the self-regulating beings surrender their self-regulating prowess. Selfishness is the anti-thesis of the said virtues but because of rationality human beings will submit to an agreement to satisfy the insufficiency of self-regulation. The universal antidote for this insufficiency is the construction of law through its rules. In the vein of Hobbes social contract theory, man must give in to an agreement to restrain his natural tendencies, but he must only surrender to a contract if and only if others will surrender to it in equal footing. But in the provision of rules it is a prerequisite to understand the intricate schema of conflict. The Role of Rules In Using Conflict Theory, Otomar Bartos and Paul Wehr claim that in the wide range of epistemic knowledge regarding conflicts there are two guiding principles that must be comprehended: one, to concentrate on general theories, and second, to carry out these theories on a simplified fashion. The former necessitate an application of theories to innumerable types of conflicts. While the latter focuses on the specific arguments or application of the former. One good example of general theories is elucidation of poverty in the third world countries using the framework of dialectical materialism by Marx. If we convert this general theory into a simplified manner, one must look at the specific causes of poverty such as shortage of natural resources, lack of capital, misallocation of funds, graft and corruption, and the likes. If one is successful in outlining the appropriate general theories in an existing conflict, then he/she translates these theories in its simplified form. And if this will be the case, then concoction of rules will be easier. Rules must embody the principle of the entire society and it must cater to the needs of its citizenry. Rules can be perceived in two ways: Kantian or Utilitarian. Immanuel Kant posits that rules must be made in the context of universal imperative, meaning it must not be used as means of advancing one’s interest rather it must be created for its own sake and for the goodness and betterment of humanity. In lieu to this, Utilitarian advocates such as J. S. Mill argues that rules must be conceptualized in the essence of achieving the goodness of the majority and resulting to the production of best consequences. Kant postulates that a rule must be encompassing and must not reside on the band wagon of majority votes because it contradicts the reason of man, and because number of votes does not imply truth. For example, killing another being is morally unjustified is a universal rule because it affirms the importance of life, which is true to all beings. Conversely, J. S. Mill believes that rules are justified if and only if the â€Å"greatest happiness for the greatest number of people† is reached. But it must be noted that utilitarian theory also entails a qualitative measurement through the intensity and duration of happiness, meaning, it must have greater impact to the society and its intensity must last for the longest time if not forever. For example, death penalty can be either permissible or impermissible depending on the context of society, but the point is, morally justifiability of death penalty lies on majority votes since it can serve the interest of more people. There are voluminous conflicting issues regarding these theories because both of them are in extreme opposition. Kant rejects utilitarianism because it does not uphold a consensual quest for universal truth and it only served the interests of the majority of population in a given social context. On the other hand, utilitarian advocates refute the Kantian theories because of its impossibility or tedious system in knowing the universal truth. But in the modern day period, utilitarian theories are more adopted than Kantian theory because it is more feasible in creating rules for present conflicts and for future conflicts. In most cases, before a rule can be ratified it must undergo an election and must meet certain number of votes to quantify its validity i. e. three-fourths of the voting population or majority votes. But it must be noted that most rules fashioned in utilitarian perspective must follow a universal precept so that it will not contradict the constitution of a specific nation. For example, murder is universally not accepted, which one of the reason why death penalty is not easy to endorse because it contradicts a universal precept, though some countries provided an reasonable exemption on the matter, killing will still be universal precept that they must consider. Rules main goal is to promote the interest of every individual as possible as it can, and to restrict the selfish ways of human beings, in order to maintain an ordered society. Because of this guideline, law has delineated the scope of public and private sphere to guarantee the possibility of generosity and altruism. Public sphere is far more superior to the private sphere because the former promotes national interest and the welfare of the entire populace. Law provides countless rules to reinforce the supremacy of public sphere, which is the apparent implication on the significance of reason. Rules are the product of our reason to rebel against the dictate of our selfish genes. In the furtherance of rules, justice must be encapsulated in its formulation to ensure an effective implementation of it.