Irreconcilable Differences and Inherent Conflicting Interests

A paper I presented on moral rules and natural laws (Johnson, 2007) uses a scene from the television series Kung Fu (Episode 11, March 15, 1973) to illustrate the relativity of moral goodness across species:

Master Po: 'Where is evil? In the rat whose nature it is to steal the grain? Or in the cat, whose nature it is to kill the rat?'

Caine: 'The rat steals. Yet, for him, the cat is evil.'

Master Po: 'And to the cat, the rat.'

We have no trouble understanding inherent conflicts between animals from different species, especially predator and prey. What is good for a predator is not good for the prey, and no moral value or moral rule can resolve their conflicting interests.

More difficult to accept is the fact that there are sometimes inherent conflicts between human beings and that morality cannot resolve all of these conflicts. Our tendency to believe in universal moral truths leads to the false conclusion that there is always a morally correct solution to every conflict (Johnson, 2007). But sometimes what is good for you is not good for me, and no moral principle can tell us what is "truly good" for everyone.

Examples of Inherent Conflict

Here is a clear-cut example. You are a soldier on a battlefield and a soldier on the other side is running toward you, firing his weapon. There is no way to escape. The charging soldier does not speak your language and is advancing in a blind rage, so there is no negotiating with him either verbally or nonverbally. Either you do nothing and allow the soldier to kill you (good for him, not for you) or you shoot him first (good for you, not good for him). Nothing from deontological (duty or rule-based) ethics, virtue ethics, or consequentialist ethics provides a solution that is good for both of you.

One might argue that you should avoid getting into situations where what is good for you is bad for another person. Maybe you should avoid joining the military where choices must be made between killing and being killed. (Of course, the choice to avoid military service may result in a different evil for you—imprisonment—if your country requires military service.) Indeed, your wellbeing and the wellbeing of others will be maximized by avoiding situations where self-interest and the interests of others are in conflict. It is wise to seek out interactions and behave in ways that result in what is good for both you and others.

But realistically, it is impossible to avoid all situations with inherent, conflicting interests. We are surrounded by people every day, all of them pursuing what they think is good, but not necessarily good for you. Even the interests of biological relatives such as siblings or parents and children necessarily come into conflict, as demonstrated in a classic article by biologist Robert Trivers (1974). Typically, children want more from their parents than parents want to give, and siblings are not willing to give more than they take from each other.

What Can We Do about Inevitable Conflict?

So, what can you do when people start doing things that are good for them but bad for you? You could attempt to convince them that what they are doing is not in their best self-interest. That is a tough sell, even if it is true that you know better than they do what is best for them, because our natural cognitive bias is that we are doing the right thing for ourselves. And if they are in fact acting in their own best self-interest, trying to convince them otherwise would involve lying and denying reality.

Alternatively, you can try appealing to moral principles to persuade people to behave differently. You can tell them that their behavior is harmful, unfair, disloyal, disrespectful, or disgusting. You can threaten retaliation. If you succeed in making them feel ashamed, guilty, embarrassed, or fearful enough, they will stop doing what is good for them but bad for you.

Unfortunately, there are costs associated with winning a moral argument. Using moral arguments or threats to get someone to behave differently might be good for you (in the short run), but not good for the other person. He or she is giving up something good in order to avoid shame, guilt, embarrassment, or retribution. The person will remember what happened and—you guessed right—may retaliate later.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Can You Be a Hero?

Does Buying a New Soul Make the Old One Worth Less?

What, then, is the ideal solution when your interests conflict with the interests of others? Sorry, but there is no ideal solution. You can seek to behave in such a way that the results are good both for you and for others. But if you enlist in the military or have children or simply live among other people, you will inevitably face situations where what is good for you is not good for the other person. When these conflicts of interest are non-life-and-death, your choice is to sacrifice your happiness for the happiness of the other person or insist that they sacrifice their happiness for yours. Maybe you can compromise with a third option that is neither best nor worst for either of you. Or, if you have an extended relationship, take turns being the happy one. None of these are ideal for anyone, but reality is often not ideal.