An alternate view on 'peace' and conflict

Hello all! I've been browsing and posting in this sub for a week or so. I'm extremely interested in various schools of philosophy, and I often find my own views lining up with certain schools, while rejecting others outright. I've been reading a book called "The Denial of Death," and after looking into it, I learned that the author, Ernest Becker, actually had a philosophy called "cultural supernaturalism." The book goes into more detail, but the basic premise, I feel, is in line with something that I've been pondering for a while, now.<br><br>What 'peace' really is and what it means to say that an action or way of life promotes 'peace.' I'm sure we are all familiar with the phrase, "war is not the answer." It promotes an idea that we should never have conflict or war, or else we are evil and terrible people. I reject this notion entirely on the grounds that it is impossible and unhealthy for a society or individual to reject conflict entirely.<br><br>Why? For starters, it suggests that we should avoid any confrontation whatsoever. This means that we should accept anything and everything that happens, lest we be labeled a warmongering evil. However, in reality, humans and societies can't function without natural conflict. When we want to express ourselves, there will be someone who disagrees. When our needs aren't being met, we can't just sit idly by. And when we are threatened, we can't just hope things get better.<br><br>So, we should recognize that war, conflict, violence, etc. is a natural and healthy part of human nature and society. Not because we should always be at each other's throats, but because recognizing the proper place of conflict promotes an actual sense of peace. This is because it allows us to identify and work through problems and disagreements. It allows us to have real discussions, instead of beating around the bush and pretending like we don't have legitimate gripes with one another.<br><br>So, what does this have to do with a philosophy called "cultural supernaturalism"? This philosophy basically describes how we create social and cultural safeguards to prevent death and decay. However, an interesting take that I've come to realize is that evil is also a social safeguard.<br><br>Think about it this way. When we want to describe someone or something as extremely malicious, we describe it as evil. However, when we call it 'evil,' we're essentially saying that this action or person is inherently bad or wrong. So, what promotes an actual sense of peace? Recognizing that war and conflict are healthy and natural, or pigeonholing everyone who disagrees with us as evil or bad?<br><br>When we recognize that conflict is healthy and natural, we can confront problems that might be hindering us or our societies head-on. However, if we view conflict or 'evil' as inherently wrong, we can't have an honest discussion about the problems that we and others are facing. This is because we're too busy labeling them as the 'bad guys' to realize that they are also human beings, with their own problems, needs, and pain.<br><br>This pigeonholing creates a barrier between people and prevents us from finding actual solutions. But, if we view 'evil' people or people who hold different opinions as human beings, rather than as enemies, we can have better discussions and more honest and transparent relationships. With these relationships, we can work through problems and confront real issues. It's not always going to be easy, and it's not going to always feel good, but we will be able to say that we're living an honest and authentic life, without all the baggage that comes from feeling that we can't or shouldn't speak up.<br><br>How do you feel about this? Do you agree or disagree and why?