Attitudes to Conflict

Conflict begins before violence

Conflict is a serious disagreement or struggle between people or groups. It can involve arguments, discrimination or competition for power and resources; war is an organised, violent form of conflict. A disagreement does not inevitably become violent. How people understand it and respond to it matters.

Buddhist teaching connects conflict with suffering and with the mental states that produce harmful actions. This means addressing conflict involves more than stopping a fight: it also involves challenging the greed, hostility and misunderstanding that can keep it going.

The Three Poisons and Itivuttaka 50

The Three Poisons are greed, hatred and ignorance. They are called poisons because they damage the mind and encourage actions that cause suffering.

Greed can turn a desire for land, resources or power into a willingness to harm others. At a personal level, someone may put getting what they want above another person's needs; at a political level, leaders may seek control over other communities or territories.

Hatred can make people want to punish or destroy those they see as enemies. Retaliation can then create a cycle: an attack prompts revenge, which prompts another attack. Each side may believe its own violence is justified while overlooking the suffering it causes.

Ignorance means more than lacking information. It includes failing to understand the causes of suffering and the harmful consequences of one's actions. In conflict, this can involve believing that violence will solve every problem or failing to recognise the humanity and suffering of opponents.

Itivuttaka 50 identifies “greed”, “aversion” and “delusion” as the three roots of what is unskilful. Aversion and delusion correspond here to hatred and ignorance. Unskilful actions arise from harmful mental states and contribute to suffering. The passage also warns that these roots harm the person in whom they arise: hostility damages the aggressor as well as the victim.

Applied to conflict, this teaching suggests that lasting peace requires changing motivations, not merely defeating an opponent. Generosity challenges greed, loving-kindness challenges hatred, and clearer understanding challenges ignorance.

Buddhist responses to conflict and its consequences

Conflict can cause death and injury, destroy homes, separate families and leave communities fearful and divided. These consequences give Buddhists reasons to seek peaceful solutions and relieve suffering.

Metta, or loving-kindness, means wishing for others' wellbeing, including the wellbeing of opponents. Karuna, or compassion, means responding to suffering with concern and a wish to relieve it. Together, they support helping people because they are suffering, rather than deciding whether they belong to the ‘right’ side.

For example, suppose families from opposing communities have lost their homes. A compassionate Buddhist response would be to help provide food and shelter without treating one community's suffering as less important. Such assistance addresses immediate suffering, while encouraging dialogue and challenging hostility can help prevent further attacks and divisions.

Mindfulness can help a person notice anger before acting on it. Buddhist teachings about karma — the consequences of intentional actions — also encourage attention to motives and to the harm that words and deeds can produce. These responses connect the inner causes of conflict with its wider social effects.

Difficult choices and situation ethics

Buddhists do not all agree about how to respond when people face an immediate threat. Many reject violence because it causes suffering and encourages hatred. Some nevertheless argue that defending people from attack may prevent greater harm. Countries with substantial Buddhist populations, including Thailand and Sri Lanka, have maintained armed forces; this does not mean that all Buddhists approve of every use of force.

Situation ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher as a Christian ethical theory, judges each situation according to the most loving action. Its guiding principle is agape, meaning selfless love: concern for others' wellbeing, not personal affection or preference. Other moral rules are not treated as absolute if following them would conflict with this principle.

Situation ethics is not a Buddhist doctrine. However, its attention to people's needs and particular circumstances can be compared with Buddhist compassion and concern for the consequences of actions. Both can support practical help for people harmed by conflict rather than ignoring their needs because they belong to an opposing group.

Suppose intervening against an attacker could protect vulnerable people. A situation ethicist might judge force to be the most loving option if it prevents greater suffering. Similarly, some Buddhists might argue that compassion requires protection, even if intervention risks harming the attacker. The opposing Buddhist argument is that violence causes suffering and can encourage hatred and retaliation, so protection should be pursued through non-violent means.

This exposes a tension between judging an action by the harm it might prevent and maintaining the commitment to avoid harming living beings. The central questions are what alternatives exist, whether the action genuinely reduces suffering, and whether its motivation is compassion rather than revenge. A loving intention does not guarantee a harmless outcome.

Does religion cause conflict?

An atheist does not believe in gods, but atheism alone does not prescribe one explanation of conflict. Some atheists argue that religious differences fuel hostility and that religious authority can be used to justify violence. They reject the idea that claiming divine approval makes a war morally acceptable. Others also recognise that religious people and teachings can contribute to peace.

A Humanist approaches ethical questions without relying on religious authority, using reason, evidence and empathy. Humanists place wellbeing, equality and human rights at the centre of their decisions. They therefore support tolerance, discussion and cooperation as ways to resolve conflict, and argue that people can act morally without religion.

Some Humanists argue that a world without religion would be more peaceful because religious divisions and claims of exclusive truth can encourage intolerance. Religious loyalty may also make people accept a leader's justification for violence without sufficiently questioning its human cost. This criticism does not mean that every Humanist blames religion for every conflict.

In Myanmar, some Buddhist monks and nationalist groups have been accused of inciting hatred and violence against the Rohingya Muslim minority. This supports the concern that religious identity and leadership can contribute to hostility. It challenges any claim that identifying as Buddhist automatically prevents harmful behaviour.

A Buddhist response is that inciting hatred contradicts metta and karuna and expresses the very poisons Buddhism teaches people to overcome. Core Buddhist teachings do not support a holy war commanded or justified by religion. However, explaining that violence contradicts a teaching does not remove responsibility for the actions of religious people or leaders.

Another response is that religion is not the only cause. Conflicts can also involve land, wealth, political power and retaliation. The Three Poisons offer an explanation that applies to religious and non-religious people alike. Removing religion would not necessarily remove greed, hatred or ignorance. Religious identity may intensify a conflict without fully explaining its origins.

Buddhists and Humanists can also agree on practical aims: reducing suffering, challenging prejudice and helping people affected by violence. Their reasons are not identical — Buddhist responses draw on teachings such as karma and compassion, while Humanists use non-religious ethical reasoning — but this need not prevent cooperation.

A justified conclusion should distinguish religious teaching, religious identity and people's actual behaviour. Religion can be used to encourage division, but it can also motivate compassion and opposition to violence. It is therefore more convincing to assess its role in a particular conflict alongside other causes than to claim that religion either always causes conflict or never contributes to it.