top of page

Morality or Darwinism

Private and political conflict resolution or enforcement

Conflict resolution needs compromises. Just as well we can say that a Middle Way must be gone. The former statement corresponds to the Western way of thinking, which is logical in its tendency. The second way of expressing more or less the same thing comes from the Eastern feeling, which is much more holistically designed.  

Already in the definition of the words we have to make compromises or search for a middle way, so we have to balance between this and that kind. But not all living beings strive for conflict resolution or seek a middle way.

In nature, it is always about the assertiveness of the strongest. Thus, this opposite behavior is expressed in Western thinking, which preferably refers to place and time, and, above all, takes into account how much energy is in something, be it in living things or in areas occupied by them. In Eastern thinking, on the other hand, one will feel more that in a certain ambience the stronger one prevails in the respective generation. The ambience here means the respective surrounding structure (close range), and the reference to the generations covers possible unpredictable developments (singular events).

Now the provocative question is close, what is more important and has priority, either conflict resolution (ethics and morality) or enforcement (Darwinism). This choice opens up both in private life (relationships) and in public life (politics), which encourages the view taken elsewhere that private and public life are mirror images of each other, and therefore not independent of each other. Behind this, as in many other areas, dual relationships can be assumed, both between private and public life as well as between morality and Darwinist assertiveness.   

© Copyright Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2018

Updated Jan. 10, 2018  

bottom of page