Contradiction of morals and intentions, isn't really much of a problem unless there is some kind of interaction between agents, where the combined judgment of two causes a contradiction or a conflict.
Say for example, working with intentions rather than moral views about life: John wants to keep the sofa and Sally wants to throw it away.
This creates an object of conflicting intention, which will elaborated on in the following framework. The "object of conflicting intention" is resolved either by 1) dominance/surrender, 2) reason, or 3) agreement.
1) Having dominance immediately means the surrender or the service to another intentions. How is dominance achieved?
A) It can actually be achieved through reason, meaning that reason itself might be form of creating dominance, in a word called justification. For example, the couple arguing over keeping the sofa, may state reasons as "The sofa is old and smells bad." In this the woman is stating her reasons to have a negative intention. What is a negative intention? Simply it either comes from emotional aversion or logical averison as so explained in recent blogs.
Another way it can be achieved is through B) "Emotional Manipulation. An example of emotional manipulation comes from our understandings of psychological forces so described by behaviorist, as negative and positive reinforcement. For example, a woman may exert "dominance" in that she makes x (a positive or negative reinforcement), contingent on the agreement or disagreement of her intention(s). This may seem complex, but in a common demonstration of this we can see it is rather simple. Example: John's girlfriend Sally says she will only have sex with John if he gets rid of the sofa.
The "manipulator variable" is called the "reinforcer," this is a law of social psychology.
C) Intelligence, wisdom, and qualification. These forms of dominance, which may come out as trust or distrust come from personal experiences and education.
D) Group bias, or group conformity -- This may be thought as a surrendering your own intention because of the group agreements. This may also come from a simple friend bias, where you agree with your friend for alternative reasons than being valid or having your own view. It is easier to agree with people than to think out your own intention, so justified by your feelings and your reasoning.
2) Reason which is explained as a form of dominance, justification above. The reason as explained usually works with the feelings associated with the object, so it is that the object of conflict receives "negative and positive intentionality from the agents."
3) Agreement, this may also be the result of dominance and reason. If there is a disagreement followed by its resolve of agreement there is thence a surrender.
A question that arises is, where is surrender and dominance in the existence of two people that agree?
As a law, where the intention being mutual and equal exists no dominance exists.
What this shows is that you one does not have to give up their moral view simply because of disagreement but there can be cases where the moral view or intention is changed, as noted previously.
How might this framework be used to understand parent-child interaction, or in the case of capitalism?