Site Title

A STUDY OF HUMAN INNER CONFLICT, BELIEF, AND RATIONALITY

Author: Sidheswar Jena

Designation: Ph.D. Scholar (Law)

Institution: Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

ABSTRACT

Human behaviour often reflects an internal conflict between rational understanding and emotional impulses, scientific reasoning and spiritual belief, and moral awareness and actual conduct. This paper examines whether such contradictions indicate psychological instability or represent a natural condition of human existence. Using an interdisciplinary approach drawing from philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and legal theory, the study explores why individuals simultaneously accept scientific explanations and spiritual beliefs, acknowledge impermanence yet pursue material accumulation, and recognise moral wrongs while failing to act consistently. The paper argues that such inner conflict is intrinsic to human cognition and does not negate moral or legal responsibility. Instead, understanding this duality provides a more realistic foundation for legal accountability and normative frameworks.

Keywords: Human cognition, belief systems, moral conflict, rationality, legal responsibility

1. INTRODUCTION

Human life is marked by contradiction. Individuals frequently experience conflict between what they know to be true and how they act, between belief and doubt, and between moral standards and personal desires. The question “Is everything alright with me?” is not merely introspective but raises broader philosophical and legal concerns regarding human rationality and responsibility.

Despite scientific advancement and increased access to knowledge, human conduct continues to reflect inconsistency. People acknowledge the impermanence of life and the certainty of death, yet actively pursue wealth, property, and social status. Similarly, individuals recognise moral wrongs such as greed, jealousy, and unethical behaviour, yet often struggle to avoid them. This paper seeks to analyse whether such contradictions are individual failures or inherent aspects of human nature.

2. CONCEPT OF HUMAN DUALITY: REASON AND BELIEF

Philosophical discourse has long recognised the divided nature of human consciousness. Plato conceptualised the human soul as consisting of rational, spirited, and appetitive elements, often in conflict with one another (Republic). This philosophical insight remains relevant in modern cognitive science.

Contemporary psychological theories, particularly Daniel Kahneman’s dual-process model, explain human cognition through two interacting systems: intuitive and emotional thinking, and slow, analytical reasoning (Kahneman, 2011). This framework explains why individuals may intellectually accept scientific theories such as evolution while emotionally or spiritually identifying as creations of God. Such coexistence of belief systems does not indicate irrationality but reflects the layered structure of human cognition.

3. KNOWLEDGE VERSUS ACTION: THE PROBLEM OF INCONSISTENCY

The disconnect between knowing what is right and acting accordingly has been examined since classical philosophy. Aristotle referred to this condition as akrasia, where individuals act against their better judgment (Nicomachean Ethics). Modern psychology supports this observation through the theory of cognitive dissonance, which explains how individuals maintain contradictory beliefs and behaviours simultaneously (Festinger, 1957).

This explains why awareness of moral standards does not guarantee moral conduct. Emotional impulses, social pressures, fear, and personal insecurity often override rational judgment. Therefore, inconsistency in behaviour is not an exception but a recurring feature of human decision-making.

4. IMPERMANENCE AND MATERIAL PURSUIT

Philosophical traditions such as Buddhism emphasise impermanence (anicca), a concept increasingly supported by existential philosophy and neuroscience. Despite this awareness, humans continue to accumulate wealth and property in search of stability.

Psychological theories such as Terror Management Theory explain this behaviour as a response to mortality awareness. According to this theory, individuals pursue material success and social validation as a coping mechanism against the anxiety generated by the awareness of death (Greenberg et al., 1986). Thus, the pursuit of material security persists even in the presence of intellectual acceptance of life’s uncertainty.

5. MORAL CONFLICT AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

Legal systems are built on the assumption of rational and autonomous individuals capable of making informed choices. However, recognition of cognitive limitations and internal conflict challenges this assumption. Modern legal scholarship increasingly acknowledges the concept of bounded rationality, which recognises that human decision-making is influenced by cognitive biases and emotional factors (Sunstein, 2005).

This understanding does not eliminate legal responsibility but calls for a more nuanced approach to accountability. Laws that incorporate psychological realism are better suited to achieve justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation rather than relying solely on punitive measures.

6. INCONSISTENCY AS A NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION

From an evolutionary perspective, inconsistency is not a flaw but an adaptive feature. Charles Darwin recognised that emotional traits such as desire, fear, and competition played a significant role in human survival (The Descent of Man, 1871). While these traits may conflict with modern moral ideals, they remain deeply embedded in human biology.

Therefore, the inability to remain constant in belief or conduct does not necessarily indicate moral weakness or psychological abnormality. Instead, it reflects the complex interaction between biological instincts, social conditioning, and rational thought.

7. CONCLUSION

The internal conflict between belief and reason, knowledge and action, and morality and desire is an intrinsic aspect of human existence. The question “Is everything alright with me?” ultimately reflects a universal human condition rather than individual failure.

Recognising this complexity allows for a more realistic understanding of human behaviour within legal and moral frameworks. Rather than denying human inconsistency, law and society must account for it while maintaining standards of responsibility and accountability.

REFERENCES

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man. London: John Murray. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem. In Public Self and Private Self. Springer. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Plato. The Republic. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge University Press.