Everyone has the right to decide what is right for him or her.
However, as that will be different for everyone, people find themselves in groups where they can assume that their idea of what is right will be shared.
Groups then take a position making their idea of what is right visible. Others join as they see fit.
So far so good.
This process evolved over the centuries and the people who find themselves in groups learn to adapt to these groups. They learn to adapt their ideas of what is right to the way the group sees things and they accept that in some cases others have differing views. They learn that it isn’t essential to always be right or have others agree.
They also learn that sometimes they are the ones who can persuade others to change their views. It becomes clear that some ideas of what is right can change, whereas others are crucial to how the group lives together.
Often, that very ability to persuade others to change their views is the result of changing circumstances. The group knows that there is a necessity to adapt to change and circumstances to remain as strong as they are, or possibly become stronger.
A consequence of these two perspectives is that different groups need to find ways to live alongside other groups surrounding them and that individuals in a group may decide to come together to promote their view of what is right. Ideas of what is right thus clash and give rise to conflicts.
Some of these conflicts can be solved, others not.
Whenever such a conflict arises, groups will ask themselves if there is a need or possibility to reinvent themselves as well as resist that possibility. The conflict will show how stuck the parties involved are in their view of what is right and their desire to enforce it upon others.
Whatever the situation, those in a conflict will also look for higher instances able to solve the conflict for them. That quest will depend on their inability to give up their idea of what is right, that is on how much they identify themselves with that idea.
Whatever these higher instances, all of them involve some kind of law. It can be an agreement between the parties, contracts they are bound by, or the laws of the entity those concerned are part of.
The larger the entities, think countries or continents, the less governing laws will be shared and accepted. The responsibility to solve the conflict on their own remains largely with the entities leading the conflict. But, they will want their idea of what is right to persist as it is their role to protect their members.
The smaller the entities, the fewer possibilities the individual has to enforce his idea of what is right. In this situation, responsibility becomes about finding a way to integrate oneself into the community and possibly find ways to win others over.
Once the conflict is over, the situation changes.
Whatever the result of the conflict, it will not have changed the perception of what is right, it will only have settled who is the strongest.
That is why, at the latest after the conflict, the parties involved need to find a way to relate with one another despite their different ideas of what is right. They need to become able to let go of the sense of victory and realize that the other party sees itself as having lost. They need to step back into the relationship.
Conflicts enable that dynamic to emerge. But stepping onto that path, accepting the grudge and its consequences, is only possible based on the memory of how stuck parties were. It takes time and effort to reduce that grudge and become interested in what is right with the view the other has.
