"Why do fights happen even when saying the right thing?"
At Haru's innocent question, Simon nodded deeply.
"That's a fundamental problem in philosophy."
Ren supplemented. "Because the standard for correctness isn't just one."
"But truth is one, isn't it?" Haru objected.
Simon smiled. "That's the absolutist position."
"Absolutism?"
"The idea that a single truth exists. Close to Plato's theory of Forms."
Ren showed the contrast. "Relativism argues that truth changes with context and standpoint."
Haru was confused. "So anything goes?"
"Not that," Simon said. "Relativism and nihilism are different."
"How different?"
"Relativism accepts multiple correctnesses. Nihilism denies correctness itself."
Ren gave an example. "Two people see a mountain from different directions. One says 'it's green,' the other says 'it's rock.'"
"Both are right," Haru understood. "Just different perspectives."
"Yes. But when each thinks 'only I am right,' conflict arises."
Simon brought up history. "Religious wars, ideological conflicts. All clashes of absolute justice."
"Terrible," Haru murmured.
"Justice can sometimes become the most dangerous concept," Ren said seriously.
"Why?"
"Because anything can be justified in the name of justice."
Simon continued. "They burned heretics 'because it was right.' Invaded. Massacred."
Haru trembled. "But leaving wrong things alone isn't good either."
"That's the dilemma," Ren nodded. "Justice should be pursued, but absolutizing it is dangerous."
Simon showed a solution. "Do you know Karl Popper's 'paradox of tolerance'?"
"I don't."
"Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?"
Haru thought. "If you tolerate it, intolerance takes over?"
"Yes. So tolerance also has limits. Self-defense is necessary."
Ren presented another angle. "In Rawls's 'Theory of Justice,' fairness is defined by procedure."
"Procedure?"
"A process everyone can agree on. Not content correctness, but method correctness."
Haru became interested. "But conflict still happens."
"It does," Simon admitted. "There's no perfect solution."
Ren continued. "That's why dialogue is important. What Habermas calls 'communicative rationality.'"
"Communicative rationality?"
"Forming consensus through dialogue. Persuasion, not imposition."
Simon supplemented. "But that's also idealistic. In reality, there are power differences and time constraints."
Haru almost gave up. "So what should we do?"
"Don't seek perfection," Ren said. "Provisionally accept imperfect consensus."
Simon added, "And always keep it revisable. Fallibilism."
"Fallibilism?"
"The premise that all knowledge can be mistaken."
Haru began to understand. "Don't absolutize your own correctness."
"Exactly," Ren nodded. "Intellectual humility."
Simon said quietly, "Correctness can also unite people. But it's correctness that isn't absolutized."
Haru asked, "Isn't that weak?"
"The opposite," Ren answered. "Flexibility is strength."
Simon gave an example. "Bamboo doesn't break in a storm. Because it bends."
"Rigid trees break," Haru murmured.
"Justice too," Ren said. "Flexible justice survives."
Haru looked out the window. Diverse people walking.
"Everyone has their own correctness."
"Yes," Simon smiled. "Acknowledging that is the first step to coexistence."
Ren said finally, "Correctness divides, but humility toward correctness connects."
Haru nodded deeply. "Difficult, but important."
The three thought quietly. About the difficult balance of justice and tolerance.