Between the Hammer of Conflict and the Anvil of Justice: Reflections in a World Without a Unified Measure
Between the Hammer of Conflict and the Anvil of Justice: Reflections in a World Without a Unified Measure
In the journey of human existence, we encounter a simple yet profound truth: each individual lives within their own unique world of thoughts and beliefs. This diversity, while enriching the human experience, holds within it the inevitable seed of conflict—for what one may perceive as absolutely right, another may deem absolutely wrong. This duality of perception forms the starting point for our reflection on the nature of conflict and justice in a world where no shared measure prevails.
The Absence of a Common Measure: Is Conflict Natural?
Imagine a vast mosaic, composed of countless individual pieces, each different in shape and color. These pieces are us—individuals and groups—each carrying our own mental framework. What brings any group of people together—whether a gang planning a crime, friends celebrating an occasion, a tribe preserving its customs, or a sports team striving for victory—is merely a small overlapping point in their personal theories.
A gang might consider theft a legitimate act and law-abidance a weakness. The state might hold the exact opposite view. Yet both might agree that murder is wrong. And within the same gang, some individuals might agree with the state on everything except the question of theft.
This fundamental difference in internal measures and values is the fuel that feeds the flames of conflict. It begins inwardly, as a struggle between opposing beliefs within the same self, then grows to involve others, and eventually becomes a conflict between collective entities.
In early history, isolation was the prevailing condition. Each tribe emerged within its environment, developed its own mental framework, and set its own internal measures to ensure unity and belonging. But this was not free of conflict. Individuals either accepted the tribe’s theory—or were made to. These measures then extended outward, either by persuasion or by force—the two faces of power. Through countless inner and outer battles, these tribes shaped their identities, their laws, their customs, and even the criteria for leadership and belonging.
The more isolated and self-contained a shared idea becomes, the more its followers become devoted to it—and the more intense their conflict with differing ideas becomes. Human history is filled with wars that all began with an idea. The absence of a single global measure capable of encompassing all humanity—by either reason or force—is the underlying cause of these conflicts.
Justice and Injustice: Relative Concepts in the Absence of a Measure
In a world without a shared measure, judging any action becomes a relative matter—always bound to the personal or collective theory from which one proceeds.
Imagine a negotiation between a state official and a member of a gang. The thief may reject the logic of being punished, while the state may reject the thief’s reasoning for taking property. From each perspective, justice looks entirely different.
Perhaps the most honest form of dialogue would be for each party to enter the logic of the other. If the thief sees theft as a right, then perhaps—within that same theory—justice might also mean the right of others to take from him. In this view, justice is closely tied to power and reciprocity: "an eye for an eye."
Injustice, then, becomes the act of judging others solely by your own measure. This is what the thief does when he takes from someone who believes in property rights. It is also what the state may do when it imposes its laws on someone who never freely chose them. Yes, to hold the nationality of a state is to accept its laws—but only for those who chose that belonging. For those born into it without choice, we return once more to the cycle of imposed theories and inevitable conflict, resolved—ultimately—by force.
This may sound like an extreme example, but it points to a deeper need: the creation of a space where conflicting mental frameworks can interact without destruction—where justice does not become another form of domination.
Conclusion: Can There Be a Shared Measure for Life?
In my journey to understand meaning and existence, when I began to explore the tension between intellectual freedom and limited reality, my first decision was simply to continue. This choice—quiet and implicit—was itself a recognition of the value of existence.
If this choice, the will to continue living, is shared by all human beings, then let it be our common measure. Let the right to life be the foundation. And let those who believe in it strive to expand its boundaries—so that it may encompass freedom, dignity, and peace for all.
If the history of ideas has often led to death and destruction, then the duty of those who follow the "theory of life" is to make conflict as peaceful as possible, and to turn justice from a sword into a bridge. Let the path to death no longer be the inevitable end of disagreement—but a rejected choice, abandoned by all.
That was the last part of the series .. thank you all.