The 100 season 2 on Conflict Resolution and Revenge (early access)
The moral case for finding a better way to resolve conflict and not seek revenge.
Author's Note: I'm releasing this piece as a paid post ahead of time. If you want to wait a few months in order to see it as part of your free subscription, that's okay. However, I'm hoping that some of you will be nice enough to become paid subscribers. The reason is because I could very much use the financial help.
The current price of the subscription is $5 per month.
____________________________________________________________________________
What is the best way to enforce the rules? How much punishment is worthy of someone who breaks the rules? Is there a point at which you can go too far in enforcing them? How do you decide what rules are worthwhile to enforce? And what happens when you encounter other people who have different rules?
In the previous examination of this, we looked at why there are rules in the first place. The reasons why rules have to exist rather than a free for all where everyone gets to do whatever they want. You can't simply allow for anarchy or nothing will ever be accomplished. So we understand why rules are what they are and we examined in some way how to enforce those rules. However, that's not where the story of rules ends. Because we looked at the development of different rules and different systems for under which they function.
The thing we didn't examine though is what happens when different sets of rules conflict.