Conflicts and Complications

Given this perception of action and reaction, conflicts begin to arise.

Individual vs. Group
One sort of conflict comes when the “greater good” creates difficulty for or contradicts the “good” as perceived by an individual or a smaller consensus.

Group vs. Group
Another sort of conflict comes when the consensus of one group of humans, creates difficulty for or contradicts the consensus of another group.

Old vs. New
There is a third sort of conflict. What happens when a previous response to human difficulties contradicts a new response to human difficulty? This new response might be more effective, less effective, counter-affective, or completely benign, and judged accordingly, but...

Complications
...this becomes complicated when a group perceives the previous response as unchangeable. In this case something may be held as “good” that is either a less effective response to difficulty, or no longer has any effect to alleviate difficulty, or even creates more difficulty.
It is holding a solution as absolute or unchangeable that creates this complication. Merely valuing a solution because it is older is somewhat natural. New solutions (or responses to difficulty) are suspect when compared to methods that are tested numerous times. The difference comes as the new solution is tested more and more with positive results and still rejected because it differs from or even contradicts the old solution. This goes against the natural tendency to adapt to the best solution for alleviating difficulty.
Another complication is created when it is perceived as possible that an individual could do consistently and exclusively “good” actions, meaning actions that were absolutely and universally good; but absolutely and universally “good” actions must mean actions that are beneficial to all and create difficulty for none, and given the subjectivity of individual human experience, what is beneficial to one individual or group often differs or even contradicts what is beneficial to another, so what then? Do we suppose that some absolutely and universally good actions have evil consequences for some? Does that not contradict what “good” is? Not if good is defined as something completely apart from it’s effects. In fact for good to be absolute and universal it must be defined apart from it’s effects. What then? Could an action which ends with the destruction of humanity itself be considered good? It could if good is defined apart from its effects. In this model of “third party” or “transcendental” good, two “wrongs” could make a “right,” and two “rights” could make a “wrong;” in other words, two evils acts could produce a good effect, and two goods could produce an evil effect.