Name: Sandeep Sachdev Student ID : B1003132 The first strategy in resolving conflict is the value analysis strategy which

was introduced by J.R. Fraenkel and Coomb. It was introduced in order to resolve the predicament of moral conflict. Both approaches deal with conflicts analytically which means reasoning or acting from an observation of the parts and interrelations the conflict before the value of facts and elements. They study the pros and cons of each fact before resolving the conflict. They think logically and rationally about the facts before taking a relevant action. They also will study the effects of what will happen after that. The Fraenkel approach is dealing of conflicts by concerning social, personal, interpersonal and intergroup dilemma. Through the conflict, an alternative action is made and taken from the choices to resolve the conflict. From each alternative action, the effects and consequences which might be likely happened is put into the account in order to choose for the best action. Results, evidences and proofs are obtained from those effects before making any judgement. The criteria of each result are being considerate by the time the final decision is afterward announced to resolve the conflicts. Meanwhile, The Coomb approach is a strategy to actually deal with the conflict and lastly test on the present of moral principle. Conflict is identified and how is the real situation happened is surveyed. The identification through the values in conflict between responsibility and justice is being recognized by Coomb approach. Facts present in the conflict will then be gathered and evaluated whether they are accurate or inaccurate. The relevance of the facts are found and chosen alternative actions. After that, a very good and precise decision is made to resolve the conflict. Lastly the decision taken is tested for the presence of moral principles. Next, the cognitive moral development strategy. This strategy was introduced by Lawrence Koehlberg. He formulated a three-level sequential arrangement. Each level had 2 stages. In the Preconventional level, children usually behave well and respond to what the society expects, whether it is right or wrong. Stage 1 is orientated towards fines and obedience to superior power due to fear. Individuals are concerned about fulfilling their own requirements and occasionally others. At the conventional level, individuals act according to the social norm. Individuals will attempt to live up to the hopes and expectation of others and bring joy to others in this stage. They also obey the rules and regulations that are set. They will view a situation from another individuals perspective. Respect is gained through good conduct and duties are completed. At the post conventional level, individuals tend to move towards neutral legal moral principles. In the later stage, decisions are orientated towards social contract with legalistic and practical elements. Their actions are considered right based on what the public think. Lastly, the last stage is orientated more towards widespread ethical principles. The thinking must be logical and universal. Extorting and exploiting is usually avoided in achieving something and actions based on self-commitment towards moral principle. Strategy of hierarchy building meanwhile was introduced by the Xoros. The hierarchy strategy assumes that 2 or more moral values cannot be achieved together. These values will be considered and the moral values which are the most important and beneficial will then be chosen. Which action which has the most positive values is also considered. It is better to pick an action which comprise of many pros than an action which comprises of less pros. Based on hierarchical thinking, the actions will then be arranged according to the amount of pros and cons. The action which has the most pros

will be placed higher in the hierarchy if compared with an action which has lesser pros. Unfortunately, there is a problem with this strategy. This particular strategy does not always form neatly. It is not always guaranteed that the strategy which consists of the most pros will lead to satisfaction and happiness. Another strategy in resolving conflict is the strategy of dissolution. In this strategy, a conflict is dissolved. This strategy is very promising especially when dealing with tensions in situations that involve alternative evils. Basically, the basis of this strategy is creating alternatives which will then make the problem be avoidable. One must be flexible when using this strategy. Analytical skills and the ability to think ahead and take precautions against any undesirable possibilities are very useful when using this strategy. With the ability to think ahead, one can always have a Plan B or a Plan C if Plan A does not work and furthermore will not be making promises one may not be able to keep but instead one can plan to make sure that different aims do not collide and ruin each others progress but can be accommodated with a single plan. It is basically a win-win situation for the aims one needs to achieve. Nevertheless this strategy has its restrictions. Some conflicts cannot be avoided and we have to live with it, like it or not. We have no power or rights over the particular circumstances. There are also conflicts which are unavoidable because of unwise promises or commitments have been made. This strategy is also limited because it does not build a character of a person. Lastly, the strategy of compromise. This strategy is aimed to satisfy both parties by means of negotiations or compromisation. Both parties will sit down and have a mutual agreement where both parties put forward a proposal which is acceptable. This is a win-win situation for both parties as both parties benefit from the agreement. As it proposes that everyone should be given at least something or that each values should be stated in some degree, it is assumed that valuable commodities can be distributed in different levels. It is also assumed that while in the agreement, everyone have a pro, they may have a con as well at the same time. They should accept it willingly in order to show compromise. This strategy also means that nobody is ranked higher than others but all of them are ranked equally. The tensions of the values also cannot be dissolved. If it could be, there would be no reason to achieve compromise and this strategy would not have made sense at all.