Many people, prompted by the tragic conflicts that make many unhappy, are likely reconsidering how to eradicate such tragedies from the world.
However, even as these thoughts arise, some may believe that only a few wrongdoers are responsible for all the problems, or they might vaguely resign themselves to the belief that a peaceful world is unattainable.
This issue is challenging, and I believe it’s not just a matter of some people changing their mindset, nor is it a problem that can be resolved by mere wishful thinking.
Fundamentally, it’s necessary to delve into the nature and thought processes of many people. Approaches that impose unrealistic ideals or high morality on the masses are unlikely to be successful. Instead, introducing concepts acceptable to most ordinary, decent people into society might reduce or temper conflicts, which seems a more practical approach.
This article will discuss how society could move towards greater tranquility if more people understood and embraced the concept of “knowing enough” — recognizing what they need and to what extent.
Hindrances to Tranquility
Let’s consider the following three beliefs based on a certain metric:
The first belief is that it’s absolutely necessary to maintain this metric higher than others. The second is that it’s essential to continuously elevate this metric. The third is that exceeding a minimum standard in this metric is absolutely necessary.
When multiple entities within a group adhere to the first belief, conflict arises. This is because, in addition to enhancing their own metric, reducing others’ metrics also becomes an option.
Conflict also arises when adhering to the second and third beliefs if there’s a possibility of augmenting the metric by exploiting others.
In the case of the second belief, exploitation always becomes an option.
For the third belief, there’s no issue as long as the metric is above the standard, but exploitation becomes an option when it falls below.
Ultimately, these situations impede tranquility.
Ethical Perspectives
If we consider instigating conflict or hindering peace as ethically immoral, then typically, initiating conflict, obstructing others’ activities, or infringing on ownership rights is seen as immoral.
Beyond these superficial actions, it’s also possible to debate the morality of beliefs.
The first belief, which necessitates surpassing others in some metric, can be seen as inducing immoral actions unless paired with a commitment to avoid immoral acts. Hence, holding this belief without the latter is in itself immoral.
The second belief, constantly raising a metric, is similarly immoral if it allows for exploitation of others.
Regarding the third belief, if the minimum standard is ethically justified, holding this belief isn’t problematic. For instance, if the standard is the necessary food for survival, it’s ethically valid. In such cases, exploiting others to meet this standard can be ethically defended as an emergency measure.
Thus, from an ethical standpoint, the first and second beliefs could be immoral depending on their combination with appropriate beliefs or the nature of the metric. Therefore, caution is needed, as prioritizing comparative metrics or endlessly raising standards can potentially lead to immorality.
Ethically, it’s more appropriate to set ethical minimum standards for various metrics and aim to exceed these standards.
The Principle of Necessity
Thus, considering the approach of constantly comparing with others or striving for growth as potentially immoral, and setting ethically justifiable minimum standards to exceed, can be termed the Principle of Necessity.
This means aiming for what is necessary is ethically valid, but pursuing unnecessary goals, greatly exceeding necessary standards, or focusing on comparisons with others without regard to necessity, is ethically problematic.
The minimum standard doesn’t need to be uniform for everyone. Setting different standards for each individual or social group is acceptable, and maintaining flexibility in standards according to individual situations, cultures, preferences, and personalities is important. If meeting these standards is collectively challenging, lowering them uniformly or applying the same standards may become necessary. If everyone can meet their self-set standards, a unified standard is unnecessary.
Therefore, to achieve the Principle of Necessity, each individual and social group must understand and embrace “knowing enough” — realizing and being aware of the minimum necessary standards for various metrics for themselves.
Understanding “Knowing Enough”
This is not about demanding restraint or limitation. If necessary, one should not hesitate to seek what is needed. The moral vice addressed here is the endless pursuit without regard to necessity and setting standards based on comparisons with others.
Therefore, understanding “knowing enough” requires a sincere introspection.
It’s about questioning how much one truly desires, not just wanting more for the sake of having more. It involves reflecting on whether the desire is genuinely personal or influenced by others having it, and establishing standards based on such considerations.
The process of “knowing enough” is not easy. We often fall into the trap of seeking as much as possible for a sense of security or determining our standards by comparing ourselves to others. Resisting these temptations and accurately assessing our desires requires strength.
Perspective of Individual Happiness
The principle of necessity is important not only from the perspective of social ethics but also for individual happiness. Continually wanting more can lead to temporary satisfaction upon acquisition, but this feeling quickly fades, prompting a pursuit for even more. The same applies to desiring more than others.
Once a certain metric exceeds the necessary standard, it’s better to stop increasing that metric and focus on improving other lacking areas. Enhancing various metrics up to self-determined standards can lead to increased personal happiness.
Current Social Situation
Ethical principles like the principle of necessity are not highly valued in today’s society. As a result, endless efforts to increase assets, living standards, grades, and abilities have been seen as positive. Education and self-improvement have focused on increasing and enhancing these aspects.
Conversely, the importance of “knowing enough” has not been a focus, and systematic knowledge or practical training on how to think this way is rarely seen in education or self-improvement.
From an ethical standpoint, it’s necessary to consider altering societal values based on the principle of necessity and to rethink education to enable the practice of this principle.
Peace and Conflict
We often harbor the thought that humanity may never achieve eternal peace. In this complex world, where numerous individuals interact, it might seem like a permanent solution for peace is unattainable.
However, complexity doesn’t preclude stable harmony.
The human body, with its intricate mechanisms, maintains high harmony among its various systems and organs. Similarly, the human brain, despite its complex structure and the knowledge and values it processes, is capable of coherent thought, even amidst conflicting ideas.
So, is the problem inherent in the complex interactions between humans?
Even in families, friendships, and communities — where relationships are complex and filled with diverse values and interests — many examples of harmony without significant conflict exist. Often, this harmony is achieved without strictly relying on authoritative or policing structures.
These observations suggest that even amidst multiple, diverse values and interests, high harmony is achievable. This realization gives hope that peace for humanity is not an impossibility.
Knowing Enough in the Biology of Living Organisms
Living organisms grow from birth, but their growth stops at a certain point. This cessation isn’t because of nutrient limitations, but rather due to instructions encoded in their DNA.
Through natural selection, organisms have evolved forms that adapt and thrive in their environments. The mechanisms for both growth and its cessation are results of this evolutionary process. Essentially, stopping growth at a certain size has been crucial for the survival and proliferation of a species. While the size at which growth stops varies across species, no organism grows indefinitely.
Furthermore, the individual organs and tissues within an organism also stop growing once they reach a sufficient size. This leads to a general uniformity in the size and shape of limbs and organs within a species.
While this may seem simple, the mechanism for stopping growth at a certain point is considerably more complex than just growing proportionally to nutrient intake. It involves setting growth limits, monitoring the current size of the body or tissues, comparing it to the set standard, and then controlling growth mechanisms based on this comparison.
This mechanism mirrors the concept of “knowing enough.” Through evolution, organisms have learned to recognize when their growth is sufficient, both for the whole body and for individual tissues, and have encoded this understanding in their genes.
Conclusion
When considering peace as a society with fewer conflicts or reduced impact of conflicts, some ethical foundation is necessary. The discussion presented in this article offers a perspective on ethics that differs from existing notions of social equality, fairness, or the spirit of self-sacrifice and altruism, aiming to approach peace from a different angle.
While existing ethical views are important, they can also present high hurdles. In contrast to mechanisms for maintaining harmony in the body, concepts like equality, fairness, self-restraint, and altruism might not be the only perspectives. As discussed, the mechanism to halt growth at a certain point seems to have significant implications for the harmony of living organisms.
Both the harmony of living organisms and the future of a peaceful society may follow the principle of necessity. Adhering to this principle is undoubtedly challenging, but its advantage lies in the focus on the individual rather than societal complexities. It doesn’t demand an understanding of social intricacies or self-sacrifice for society’s sake, but rather a continuous introspection to “know enough.” This challenge lies more in emotional intelligence than in intellectual ability.
Moreover, this difficult task of “knowing enough” has the potential to enrich personal lives. Continuously contemplating what and how much one truly desires is, in essence, reflecting on one’s happiness.
