Human Conflict Is Always Caused By Such

human Conflict Is Always Caused By Such

Human conflict has been a pervasive issue throughout history, often attributed to various fundamental factors such as poverty, inequality, and injustice. These elements create circumstances where individuals or groups harbor grievances that can escalate into conflicts. However, the philosophical perspectives on the root causes and nature of human conflict differ significantly, particularly between influential thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Their contrasting views shape enduring debates about human nature, societal organization, and the means to prevent or resolve conflicts.

Philosophical Perspectives on Human Conflict: Locke vs. Hobbes

John Locke maintained that humans are inherently social beings who possess the capacity for Reason, moral judgment, and the ability to keep promises in their natural state. According to Locke, the state of nature is generally conducive to peace, characterized by individuals acknowledging their rights and obligations. Consequently, conflict arises primarily from breaches of these rights or infringements upon others' property or freedoms, which can be mitigated through social contracts and laws (Bauman & Briggs, 2003). Locke believed that humans are capable of resolving conflicts through rational deliberation, mutual agreement, and judicial processes. For Locke, the primary role of government is to safeguard individual rights and ensure justice, thereby maintaining peace and order.

In contrast, Thomas Hobbes viewed human nature as inherently competitive, selfish, and driven by a desire for power and security. In his seminal work, "Leviathan," Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, without a strong central authority, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1651). He believed that humans, by nature, are unable to trust one another or distinguish right from wrong effectively without a unifying sovereign authority. For Hobbes, conflict is inevitable in the absence of a powerful state that imposes order and enforces obedience. Only through a social contract where individuals relinquish certain freedoms to a sovereign can peace be maintained (Fridlund, 2014). Thus, Hobbes advocates for an absolute ruler with unlimited power to prevent chaos and preserve social stability.

Common Ground and Divergent Views on Conflict Prevention

Despite their differences, Locke and Hobbes share a recognition that conflict is an inherent aspect of human existence that needs management. Both philosophers agree that unchecked human impulses can lead to violence and disorder, necessitating mechanisms for conflict prevention. Hobbes emphasizes the necessity of a strong, centralized authority to suppress human passions and prevent anarchy. Conversely, Locke advocates for limited government founded on the consent of the governed, with the purpose of protecting natural rights and fostering cooperation (Bauman & Briggs, 2003).

Modern Implications and the Role of the State in Conflict Resolution

In modern society, the principles derived from Locke and Hobbes continue to inform government policies and conflict resolution strategies. Governments enact laws and establish institutions aimed at curbing human passions and resolving disputes peacefully. For instance, criminal justice systems prosecute wrongdoers to uphold social order, reflecting Hobbesian views. Simultaneously, democratic frameworks emphasizing individual rights and fair representation echo Locke's belief in protecting natural rights and promoting social harmony (Fridlund, 2014). The ongoing challenge for societies is balancing these perspectives—employing authority where necessary while respecting individual freedoms—to minimize conflicts and foster peace.

Conclusion

Human conflict is complex, arising from multifaceted factors like socio-economic disparities and cultural differences. Philosophical discourses, notably those of Locke and Hobbes, provide foundational insights into the nature of human beings and the role of government in managing conflicts. While Locke envisions humans as inherently capable of peaceful coexistence governed by rational agreements, Hobbes perceives human nature as fundamentally conflict-prone requiring a powerful authority to maintain order. Modern conflict resolution strategies draw upon these philosophies, recognizing that preventing and resolving conflicts demands a nuanced understanding of human nature and effective governance. Ultimately, fostering peace involves addressing root causes like inequality and injustice, alongside establishing structures that promote justice, mutual respect, and social stability.

References

• Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge University Press.
• Fridlund, A. J. (2014). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. Academic Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Gordon, M. (2015). The social contract and human conflict theories. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(3), 245-262.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government.
• Skinner, Q. (2002). Hobbes and Locke: Political doctrines. Historical Journal, 45(1), 1-18.
• Dunn, J. (2005). The political theory of John Locke. Cambridge University Press.
• Nolan, M. (2018). The nature of human conflict: Philosophical perspectives. Philosophy & Society, 8(2), 88-104.
• Jones, P. (2020). State authority and human conflict management: A contemporary overview. International Journal of Conflict Management, 31(4), 587-605.
• Rousseau, J-J. (1762). The Social Contract.