[betty boop]

I am stunned to hear someone, who is apparently intelligent, say there is no conflict in nature. Absolutely stunned.

I didn't say there was no conflict in nature. All I meant to suggest is that man and human living is not wholly contained within the paradigm of conflict. For man, unlike other existents in nature, conflict is optional.

If you ascribe to the theory of human "unalienable rights" which are absolutely contingent on God-given human nature in support of human free will, then I don't know how you could arrive at a different conclusion. But if you have, I'd be deeply interested in hearing the details.

[balrog666]

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"All I meant to suggest is that man and human living is not wholly contained within the paradigm of conflict. For man, unlike other existents in nature, conflict is optional."

That is not what you said before, or else you misunderstood me(or I you). And the above is not completely true. Cooperation is common enough in the animal world (for example, the apes). This doesn't mean that life isn't a struggle for existence. I was talking about the struggle *within nature*. Human society, while following all the laws of the nature world, is not usually considered *in nature*. You are talking now about civilization. One of the greatest benefits of civilization is the way it helps counter the ferocity of the conflicts that are found in the natural world.

When Hobbes coined the phrase, "bellum omnium contra omnes", he was referring to man outside of civilization, in what was considered a *state of nature*. Marx used it to describe the workings of capitalism. Darwin used it (correctly) to describe the struggle that exists in the natural world between organisms. He did not invent the concept in biology, nor did he approve of attempts to translate this to human society.