An Epicurean View On Conflict Solving
On a forum about relationships, I read about a conflict between a couple. While having a cat before, the husband had experienced this as very unpleasant, especially due to feeling disgusted by the smell. After moving to a new house, the wife wanted to have another cat and he did not.
What surprised me very much, was the following discussion based upon a general evaluation, that it were a conflict between two equal positions and equal needs. The discussion centered about the difficulty of a compromise between having a cat and not having a cat.
But the positions in this conflicts are far from equal and therefore not a basis for a fair compromise. A compromise means finding a fair balance of giving and taking for both sides involved. But in the cat example, the wife wanted a onesided benefit only for herself, for which only the husband would have to pay by suffering discomfort.
In the sense of Epicurus' principle of not harming and not be harmed, his moral right to maintain a life without discomfort is a stronger right than her wish to get an additional benefit. The wife is already in a situation of wellbeing and without discomfort. A cat is not a necessity, that causes dishomeostasis when there is none. The husband's need are much more basic, he wants to maintain the homeostasis of not suffering as a part of daily life the discomfort of disgusting smells.
On a forum about relationships, I read about a conflict between a couple. While having a cat before, the husband had experienced this as very unpleasant, especially due to feeling disgusted by the smell. After moving to a new house, the wife wanted to have another cat and he did not.
What surprised me very much, was the following discussion based upon a general evaluation, that it were a conflict between two equal positions and equal needs. The discussion centered about the difficulty of a compromise between having a cat and not having a cat.
But the positions in this conflicts are far from equal and therefore not a basis for a fair compromise. A compromise means finding a fair balance of giving and taking for both sides involved. But in the cat example, the wife wanted a onesided benefit only for herself, for which only the husband would have to pay by suffering discomfort.
In the sense of Epicurus' principle of not harming and not be harmed, his moral right to maintain a life without discomfort is a stronger right than her wish to get an additional benefit. The wife is already in a situation of wellbeing and without discomfort. A cat is not a necessity, that causes dishomeostasis when there is none. The husband's need are much more basic, he wants to maintain the homeostasis of not suffering as a part of daily life the discomfort of disgusting smells.
The fair solution is the reciprocity of consideration. While she owes to him to refrain from a wish causing him discomfort, he owes her the same consideration of not causing her discomfort or pain. The balanced reciprocal avoidance of harming and hurtful behavior is much better than balancing sacrifices in the form of suffering for each other.
