Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations

Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations

Golden Rule 1: Choose the lesser evil

Of two necessary evils, choose the leaser one. That seems obvious enough except for the fact that it is not always easy to decide which of the two or more evils concerned is the “lesser” one. Sometimes it is fairly easy to make you choice.

 For instance you are a pilot and, for some reason or the other plane is going to crash very soon. You have just two choices to crash the plane into either a maternity hospital or an old age home. For most of us, it would be clear enough: crash into the old age home.

In the maternity hospital, however, there would be scores of babies who deserve to be given a chance to live and know the world: or again, if my brakes don’t work and may car is hurtling down a narrow on my right (no other choice!), obviously I should turn left because, that way, I’d kill one less person. However, let us not forget than in such moments of confusion and split-second decisions making one can hardly be expected to function reasonably and weigh up all the consequences. One could hardly hold it against the poor pilot (or driver) if, in his confusion he turned the wrong way!

Golden Rule 2: Choose the Greater Good

This is the obvious principles to invoke when choosing between two goods. Most of the time, however, it is not clear what is the greater good. In that case, one could employ St Augustine’s practical dictum to this regard, ama et fac quod vis: love and do what you like or, to put it more clearly, choose either, but do it from a perspective of love.

In his Existentialism and Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre gives us an interesting case, where a young lad, early in World War II, when France was about to fall to the advancing Nazi hordes, had to make a difficult decision: should he signs up to fight off the invaders or stay at home to take care of his invalid mother? Applying the principle given above, the choice is the boy’s. No ne can tell him objectively what the greater good is. Let he decide for himself.

Golden Rule 3: The Double Effect

This concerns the controversial – and conflict – situation where one and the same act produces two effects, one good and the other evil. Under what conditions it would be morally justified to allow such an act?

Authors generally list four such conditions. They are as follows, accord to the scholastic Celestine Bittle, in his Man and Morals, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950 (pp.44-46). First, “the action directly intended must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent.” The reason for this is that morality is a matter of intention. If Mr X do wrong unintentionally (e.g. injure someone in a game of football), he cannot be held to blame for it – unless, of course, he acted recklessly, in which case my fault would be reckless behavior, not having injured someone. Morality is not a mere matter of externals. Even a good action may be rendered less worthy if it is done for a unworthy motive: for instance, a person makes a big donation to the poor, not because he cares for them, but because he wants to win votes.

Secondly, “the good effect must follow from the action at least as immediately as the evil effect; or the evil effect may follow from the good effect.” However, “it is never morally right for the good effect to be produced through the evil effect.” This follows from the above. Remember, good or evil is primarily in the intention.

 We must always intend directly what is good or indifferent; if we intend what is evil directly, we are doing something evil. This would involve claiming that the end justifies the means.

The above-presented figures should make it clear why Case (I) and Case (II) are permissible and Case (III) is not: it is the only one where evil is directly intended. In this last case, moral evil makes an entry into the intention of the agent. 

Thirdly, the foreseen evil may not be intended or approved, but merely ‘permitted’ to occur.” The reason for this is obvious enough and also follows from the first condition. In Bittle’s words, “If the evil effect were intended or, when it occurred, approved, then the will itself thereby would become evil in its inclination, and the action would be morally wrong.”

Finally, “there must be proportionate and sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to occur while performing the good action.” Obviously, one could hardly justify an action which produced a minor good effect and a proportionately high bad effect

Vishnu's case would  belong to the Case (III) if he allows the students to continue the photocopy as the immediate evil effect would be violation of copy rights. Thus in no way he should allow the students to go for the photocopy.