Is conflict a part of human nature?

Post Reply New Topic

I read a story once about how children in one of the kibbutzes in Israel would refuse to share toys even though the kibbutzes did not promote materialism and were communal in nature.

Also, Internet forums seem to always devolve into argument, and most movements tend to fracture into multiple factions due to in-group arguing.

Are people simply not designed to live at peace with one another?

I get really annoyed if someone makes a false comment or disagrees with me. When I was younger and still a little bit now I will sometimes annoy someone that bothers me. I thought it was funny/interesting what their expressions would be. Sort of like an experiment. I know its immature but sometimes I don't even realize I am doing that until I think about it until an hour later or if someone tells me to stop saying stupid stuff

People can live at peace with each other provided they do not have to make an exclusive choice between their own interests and that of others. Where win-win is possible many people will be reasonable and cooperative.

ruveyn

I think deep down humans have a tribal nature and that can lead to problems.

Sometimes groups can get along. As ruveyn said if you can come to mutual Win-Win outcomes.

Otherwise what happens different forces bring different factions to close together. Not literally but through modern media like forums. Different human groups or tribes need their space.

The most chilling words: Him OR Me. This is the fountainhead of war and death. The Fatal Exclusive Or.



ruveyn

perhaps their own interests and the interests of others are more closely linked than they are aware of.

Mutual altruism can be a survival strategy.

ruveyn

I'm not sure that conflict is part of human nature in the sense that an individual human has conflict somehow built-in. But what does seem to be part of our nature is the desire for some things and the avoidance of others. If we have these desires thwarted by other humans it is hard to see how conflict of some sort will not arise.

You could say that humans do have conflict individually built-in in the sense that we have evolved from life-forms that have successfuly competed or been in conflict with other organisms for the resources for growth. We are how we are because our evolutionary ancestors have been successful where there is a conflict of interests. We are prepared for conflict. We have done well where there has been conflict in the past. We are good at conflict. Without conflict we would lack direction. Even, conflict is good for us. You could argue this.

IMO, no. And "conflict" is not a part of human nature, but individualism is.

Animals are always fighting each other. Why would humans be less disposed by nature to do such a thing?

We are designed by evolution for conflict, rather than to live at peace with one another. Civilization comes in and says, look, we can get more of the things we want and less of the things we don't, if we live at peace with one another and help each other out. And it works, we do indeed have the benefits of civilization. But when we try to get the benefits for ourselves at the expense of others, we are hurled into conflict in an attempt on both sides to get its desires met.

There seems to be no limit to human desire but I'm not clear that human conflict is theoretically necessary.

Conflict does seem theoretically necessary when there is not a way to get what we want through co-operation. In practice we have many ways to get what we want through co-operation and these are win - wins, but we also lack ways to get what we want through co-operation and these are conflicts. In practice there is also much confusion on the part of individuals and groups as to what it is we do actually want and this varies the situation immensely.

I tend to agree but animals are not 'always' fighting each other. I get the impression that a lot of the time, animals get along, although there are conflicts that readily break out. Actually, they tend to avoid getting in each other's way quite a bit so as to avoid conflict. Well, the carnivorous predator's don't but their prey does. I suppose domesticated animals have been bred for their more dosile traits. I'm just thinking aloud here.

Actually, I think that while evolution has designed us for conflict, it has also designed us for co-operation and for living at peace with one another through civilization. More basically, then, we are designed to get what we want and that can be achieved through either peace or through conflict depending upon what it is we want and how we see to be the best way to go about getting it.

My response was towards his surprise at children in a "non-materialist" society not sharing their toys. So I agree, yes, on the large scale humans can get along. But as far as petty things like children sharing toys, most will still feel a natural greed on one level or another.

And point taken, "always" probably wasn't the right word.

Yes


Well, if you believe that people were "Created", then...

"Yet man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward." -- Job 5:7 (NIV)

Otherwise, "Survival of the Fittest" and the "Territorial Imperative" are likely products of human evolution.

Some would say that we're not designed whatsoever, but I don't agree with that. We're given the command to "be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." and spreading out and filling the Earth allows us to both subdue it (in the sense of having the ability to manage resources and not necessarily in the sense of being a tyrant but more in the sense of providing order) as well as to move away from each other. When people are cramped around by each other, conflict happens. Kids mentioned above, some have one toy and another doesn't. The one that has the toy wants to keep the toy and the one that doesn't have the toy wants the toy. But they don't have to get the exact same toy that the other has, at least if they realize that, but instead they can go out and make their own instead. Moving apart allows for more access to more resources and with the time and effort one can have their own land, have their own toys, have their own belongings, but too often the easier route is taken rather than the route which is more proper: it is easier to take that which is already made than to make one's own.

But online it's different. Whenever there's a disagreement it usually remains on the surface, on the level of conclusions alone, in which people bludgeon each other with their own thoughts that they hold absolute and anything to the contrary is presumed wrong either by intellectual dishonesty or intentional dishonesty. It's actually easier for a person to change their own mind than to be argued with on the outside anyway. Being surrounded by others telling you that you're less intelligent or something to the same effect for disagreeing with them is not a way to be convinced of anything other than the horribleness of mankind. Being apart from others, one is more able to think and learn, but surrounded with stop thinking and start talking about only that which we have thought about before.

Sorry, I was being a little pedantic whilst also rethinking conflict as a basic state of nature.

Yes, it was surprising to me to see how selfish children can be when there is a lot of talk of childhood innocence and idealisation of children and blaming bad behaviour on parents. There is something to be said for these things bu there also seems to be a basic self-interest in children that occurs quite spontaneousely.

I call prisoner's dilemma!