A Method for Personal Conflict Resolution

A Christian Philosophy

By personal conflict, I mean here ‘my conflict with Bob’, ‘my conflict with Sarah’. Not social / political conflicts between states; not technical conflicts. Let’s label the roles as the ‘conflicter’ and the ‘conflicted’, where the conflicted has a personal problem with the conflicter.

Premise: All conflicts fit into one of two categories: (1) Perception from the conflicted that the conflicter has malicious intentions towards the conflicted or others. (2) Perception from the conflicted that the conflicter is looking down on the conflicted or others (judging them to have lesser value).
The premise was obtained from inductive reasoning, based on my own experience. I think I can also use deductive reasoning, but it would be too long to demonstrate and so I will leave it out for now.

Method in theory: If the premise is true, then the solution to resolve personal conflicts is evident: Remove the perceptions of having malicious intentions, and of looking down on people.

Method in practice - if you are the conflicter: You must get into the habit of not being perceived as either (1) or (2), through self-awareness. I trust here that you are an honest human being that wants to resolve conflicts. Sure, it may happen that the conflicted is still unconvinced despite your best efforts, but you will have done your part to minimize the conflict.

Method in practice - if you are the conflicted: Bring the perceptions to light: Are they true? I think a private face-to-face conversation with the conflicter is best, to remove the possibility of a misunderstanding. Yes, the conflicter may lie, but I think the lie would eventually get exposed. Then two outcomes are possible:
(i) The perceptions are not true: Congrats! The conflict has been resolved.
(ii) The perceptions are true: You have established that the conflicter is an objectively bad person, because they failed the golden rule of ethics. As such, stay away from them if you can. If you can’t (say because they are a family member or coworker), then there is unfortunately not much you can do, except to protect yourself from any injustice inflicted by them. But this becomes easier to do once you have a solid judgement of what type of person they are.

Thoughts on the premise and method? Do you think they are correct, and if so, useful?

T Clark

All conflicts fit into one of two categories: (1) Perception from the conflicted that the conflicter has malicious intentions towards the conflicted or others. (2) Perception from the conflicted that the conflicter is looking down on the conflicted or others (judging them to have lesser value). — Samuel Lacrampe

Most conflicts are caused by one person having something that the other person wants, not perceptions.

BC

↪Samuel Lacrampe

The conflicter may be a bad person and have false perceptions, but also occupy a position from which the conflicted can not reach them. For instance, the CEO of the company might dislike homosexuals and harbor all sorts of false views about them, and might frustrate their desires to advance. The conflicted homosexuals in the company may not be able to arrange any sort of significant face-to-face confrontation.

The conflicted and conflicter may have both true and false impressions of the other, which more than a little negotiation will be required to sort out.

The conflicter may not care what the conflicted thinks, and be in a position to ignore the conflicted's objections.

The social structure of organizations can wrongfully disadvantage some people (conflicted) without any one worker (conflicter) being responsible. If organizations intend to disadvantage some individuals, they will have no redress.

Sometimes the conflicted need to combine their individual strengths and address conflicter(s) as a group.

A Christian Philosophy

↪T Clark

Perception is necessary. Let's say that I indeed would be upset if you had something I did not have.
- If it is true but I don't know about it, then I would not be upset.
- If it is not true but I think it is, then I would be upset.

Additionally, I would not classify this case as a 'personal' conflict, that is, a conflict with the person's personality or behaviour, because the conflict is about the 'something' that the conflicter possesses, and not about the conflicter himself. This would be instead a 'technical' or 'economical' conflict.

A Christian Philosophy

The conflicter may be a bad person and have false perceptions, but also occupy a position from which the conflicted can not reach them. For instance, the CEO of the company might dislike homosexuals and harbor all sorts of false views about them, and might frustrate their desires to advance. The conflicted homosexuals in the company may not be able to arrange any sort of significant face-to-face confrontation. [...]
The conflicter may not care what the conflicted thinks, and be in a position to ignore the conflicted's objections.
The social structure of organizations can wrongfully disadvantage some people (conflicted) without any one worker (conflicter) being responsible. If organizations intend to disadvantage some individuals, they will have no redress.
Sometimes the conflicted need to combine their individual strengths and address conflicter(s) as a group. — Bitter Crank

Everything you said above fits into the outcome (ii) in my original post, that is, real malicious intentions from the conflicter. You are correct that there is no full-proof solution to solve the problem. My method only gets you to the point where you can have a confident judgement about the conflicter and the situation. After that, it will not prevent you from getting murdered if that is the conflicter's true intention.

The conflicted and conflicter may have both true and false impressions of the other, which more than a little negotiation will be required to sort out. — Bitter Crank

Not 'negotiation', but 'conversation', which is a means to the end of removing any possible misunderstandings. The point is that perceptions are not always accurate, and so it is necessary to validate them before deciding what to do next to resolve the conflict.

geospiza

Most conflicts are caused by one person having something that the other person wants, not perceptions. — T Clark

Or caused by two parties each of whom want something, and the things that they want are mutually exclusive or otherwise incompatible.

A Christian Philosophy

↪geospiza

This is once again describing an economical or political conflict, and not a personal one as per the original post is about. A personal conflict is about a person's personality or behaviour, not about disparities.

geospiza

↪Samuel Lacrampe

If I'm confined to a hotel room with my son, and he wants to turn the television up loudly, and I want to read a book in silence, isn't that a personal conflict?

A Christian Philosophy

↪geospiza

This is a non-personal conflict as per what I mean by 'personal'. Admittedly, I am not very clear about what I mean. Personal conflicts are ethical issues with a perception of unethical or unjust behaviour from a specific person. I have trouble finding a better definition, and so I will use case examples:

Your example of conflict is non-personal because neither the dad nor the son is perceived to act unjustly by the other. The root cause is not about the dad or the son, but about the mutually exclusive desires.

In contrast, the following would be a personal conflict: My son wants to watch tv with me and I say no. Then my daughter wants to watch tv with me and I say yes. There is here a perception of injustice.

TheMadFool

↪Samuel Lacrampe

A good analysis. Learned. Thanks.

What I want to say is...

Malicious intent and looking down on someone seem too similar to deserve a distinction. Perhaps you see some reason to separate the two. I'd like to know thanks.

A Christian Philosophy

↪TheMadFool

Good question.
They are both unethical behaviours for failing the golden rule; but 'malicious intent' is a dishonest mistake, where as 'looking down on someone' is an honest (yet unreasonable) mistake.

Example of malicious intent: I talk trash about you behind your back and humiliate you in public. My intent is to harm you.

Example of looking down on someone: I consistently forget my daughter's birthday, yet always remember my son's birthday. Or, I invite my whole group of friends for a BBQ, except for Tom, out of negligence. My intent is not to harm anyone, and yet I evidently see my daughter as having lesser value than my son; or Tom as having lesser value than the other friends in the group.

TheMadFool

↪Samuel Lacrampe

I see.

So, looking down on someone is a lesser evil than malicious intent.

So, don't they deserve separate solutions? Your solution doesn't seem to make that distinction.

A Christian Philosophy

↪TheMadFool

It is true that the method gives the same step-by-step solution to both (1) perception of malicious intentions, and (2) perception of looking down on others. That said, it is useful to make the distinction.

If you want to avoid being the conflicter: A lot of honest people will understand that they must avoid (1), but may not know about avoiding (2). Avoiding (1) is like the negative form of the golden rule "don't do onto others as you don't want them to do onto you". Avoiding (2) is like the positive form of the golden rule "do onto others as you want them to do onto you". Both are needed to avoid conflicts.

If you want to avoid being the conflicted: It is valuable to determine if your conflicter fits into (1) or (2), as it may change the approach you take to bring the perception to light. If you suspect (2) and not (1), then the conflicter has no motive to lie, and so you can be more forward about it. If you suspect (1), then the conflicter may lie, and so further investigation would be needed to get to the bottom of the conflict (while still assuming innocence until proven guilty ... not an easy thing to do).

TheMadFool

If you want to avoid being the conflicted: It is valuable to determine if your conflicter fits into (1) or (2), as it may change the approach you take to bring the perception to light. If you suspect (2) and not (1), then the conflicter has no motive to lie, and so you can be more forward about it. If you suspect (1), then the conflicter may lie, and so further investigation would be needed to get to the bottom of the conflict (while still assuming innocence until proven guilty ... not an easy thing to do). — Samuel Lacrampe

So, the solution differs between (1) and (2). That's sensible.

A Method for Personal Conflict Resolution

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions