The Conflict Avoidance Axiom

Conflict avoidance is presumed to be desirable.  This axiom should be a self-obvious truth yet it can be easily tangled into logical knots.  For example, what if somebody *likes* conflict?  Would conflict avoidance then *still* be desirable?

Conflict is undesirable, unless one likes conflict, in which case conflict is desirable for that person.  But conflict requires at least two parties, so what if one party likes conflict and the other party does not like conflict, would conflict (or the lack of conflict) be desirable or undesirable?  The answer of course would depend on who is being asked the question.

The conflict avoidance axiom can create a conundrum kind of like the Liar's Paradox:  "This sentence is false."  If the Liar's Paradox is true, then it is false.  Yet, if the Liar's Paradox is false, then it is true.  Consider this paradoxical possibility:  "If I like conflict and there is no conflict, then that creates a conflict for me, which I don't like, even though I like conflict."

Let the straightforward and apparently naive statement that "conflict avoidance is desirable" be called "Level 1."  Then let the reasoning which considers that both of two parties might *like* conflict, be called "Level 2."  This Level 2 can also be called "One Off" because it is one level of reasoning off the original straightforward statement.  Again, if the original statement is "conflict avoidance is desirable," then the statement "but, if two people *like* conflict, then for them conflict avoidance is *not* desirable" is One Off.  A One Off statement is typically used to attempt to nullify an original statement and that is usually as far as an argument goes, although it is possible for an argument to proceed with a Two Off statement and onwards to deeper levels of reasoning whose conclusions can vacillate.

As a side note, being offended is not necessarily the same as being confronted.  If one is offended by tie-dye clothes, for example, and a stranger in a public place is wearing tie-dyes, that does not mean on its own that the person wearing tie-dyes likes confrontation and is confronting the person who is offended.

For this discussion, when a party "likes conflict," that implies that the party initiates conflict.  When a party "does not like conflict," that implies that the party does *not* initiate conflict.  These implications mean that for two parties, if either party "likes conflict," then it is presumed that conflict is occurring.  Likewise, if both parties "do not like conflict," then it is presumed that conflict is *not* occurring.

Can there be a third party or societal opinion on this conundrum?  Yes, the societal opinion is the same axiom that conflict avoidance is presumed to be desirable.  A third party or societal opinion is pertinent when a conflict between two parties affects a third party or society in general.  Let this third party or societal level of conflict consideration be called "Level 3" (Two Off).  A Conflict Matrix can help to resolve paradoxical or vacillating reasoning for consideration of conflict avoidance on a societal level.

Fig. A is a Conflict Matrix that helps to resolve paradoxical or vacillating reasoning for the societal consideration of conflict.  The most peaceful situation is when Party A does not like conflict and Party B does not like conflict.  There is no conflict and the situation is desirable.  Another possibly desirable situation is when both parties like conflict.  An example of this might be when the parties are the two teams in a basketball game.  As the matrix shows, undesirable situations occur when one party likes conflict and the other party does not like conflict:  a conflict-in-liking-conflict.

Examples of conflict-in-liking-conflict are bullying and crimes against victims:  a bully that likes conflict and initiates a confrontation against a victim who typically does not like the conflict; and, a perpetrator that likes conflict and initiates conflict by robbing, assaulting, or otherwise committing a crime against a victim who typically does not like the conflict.

Just because two parties like conflict does not necessarily mean that the overall situation is desirable.  If the two parties are criminal gangs who are fighting each other, for example, then this might still be an undesirable situation for society in general.  This situation would be Level 3 and Two Off.  At this point, conflict is undesirable, unless both parties *like* conflict, unless both parties *liking* conflict is undesirable for society in general.

But, what if different portions of society disagree on the desirability of two parties liking conflict?  Suppose that some people believe that a “criminal gang” is really a political party and that the dual conflict is good?  This would be Level 4 and Three Off.  Then suppose that this view creates a conflict by threatening a corporation’s influence over government (Level 5 and Four Off).  This may create conflict with another country in the world which is resisting corporate control in their part of the world (Level 6 and Five Off).  As one can see, the levels can get deep and conclusions vacillate.

Mass media discussions of confrontational events appear to generally stop at One Off instead of going to deeper levels.  They also appear to stop at the level which best supports the belief of the person leading the discussion.  Deeper levels are often ignored as if they do not exist.

Now, presume for argument that the Conflict Avoidance Axiom is completely wrong.  This argument has at least two branches.  The first branch of this argument is that competition is a form of conflict that is good for society.  The second branch of this argument is that conflict is good so long as the person making the argument is on the offensive in the conflict.

Proponents of the first branch of argument could say that, for example, competition among siblings, competition in schools, competition in sports, and competition in workforces helps to create a motivated and talented populace for the success of the country in warfare and other international endeavors.  Following this through the levels, conflict is undesirable (Level 1) unless both parties agree to it as mutual competition (One Off) and society approves of it (Two Off).  However, issues arise at higher levels if portions of society disagree on the favorability of this widespread competition (Three Off), corporations see excessive competition as interfering with employee teamwork (Four Off), and other nations see it as being confrontational (Five Off).

The response to the first branch of argument warrants more discussion than appropriate for the instant discussion.  However, in brief, this argument promotes sibling rivalry, school bullying, and confrontations on societal, corporate, and international levels.  Situations can occur where society creates conflict between unwilling participants.  While competition can be desirable when all parties are in agreement, competition becomes inappropriate conflict when not all parties are in agreement.

Proponents of the second branch of argument could say that they are superior and that they have some right to create conflict with others.  An example of this would be conservatives who harass “hippies” and liberals because they think that is the right thing to do.  Other examples of this are people who believe in putting down women, gays, and/or persons of other races.  Some people might tie this in with evolution believing that “survival of the fittest” means survival of the most violent.

The response to the second branch of argument is that there will therefore be conflict, but that does not make the conflict desirable.  “Survival of the fittest” can also include survival of the smartest, for example, and/or survival of the most cooperative.

In conclusion, conflict avoidance being desirable is an axiom.  This is a self-obvious truth even though it can be tangled into logical knots.   An exception to this axiom is competitive situations with all parties in agreement.  The agreeableness/disagreeableness of conflict can change on different levels of discussion and can lead to paradoxical or vacillating arguments.  Presuming that the axiom is wrong leads to conflict which may be unavoidable.  However, the situation that some conflict is unavoidable does not make that conflict desirable.

Like cars in their lanes,

Conflict should be avoided,

Then, go where you please.

Suggested Comments: 

What are examples of things that are clearly bumping elbows, things that are in the grey area, and things that are clearly not bumping elbows?