Final answer:
The dilemma between a world with ordered values versus one with conflicting values reflects contrasting philosophies on societal organization, liberty, and equality. Rational design might favor equal fundamental rights and allow for inequalities only if beneficial to all, particularly the least well-off. This encompasses the natural existence of conflict due to diverse values and the significance of power dynamics in resolving such conflicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed touches upon a fundamental debate in social and political philosophy regarding the organization of societal values. On one hand, some argue for a world with a clearly ordered ranking of values to ensure a harmonious society without the burden of conflict. On the other hand, a world where values genuinely conflict recognizes the diverse and sometimes incompatible priorities of individuals and groups, leading to a more dynamic and pluralistic society.
The rational person might seek to create a world according to principles that assume a veil of ignorance about one's place in society, following the thoughts of political philosopher John Rawls. They would prioritize equal basic liberties and rights for all and only permit inequalities if such disparities would benefit the least well-off individuals. This approach aims to foster a more egalitarian society, as highlighted by theorists like Karl Marx, who emphasized the role of conflict in driving social progression and widening the distribution of power and resources for greater freedom and economic stability.
When considering the concept of truth, conflicts, and power, it's understood that different groups will inevitably have divergent beliefs and values, leading to conflict, where the resolution often depends on the power dynamics in play. Moreover, contemplating various historical and contemporary international systems introduces the complexity and possibility of finding a middle ground that allows for both independent cultures and broader global cooperation.