New discovery

[peacegirl]

If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. "If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog in generating him." It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age.

 

Yet despite the fact that we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction, or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN'S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.

[peacegirl]

This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematic corollary, God's commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done – only before.

 

"I do not understand why it applies before something is done, and not after. Does this mean that you can blame after it is done? And doesn't this go back to the same problem man has been faced with since the beginning of time; how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code?"

 

"It is a natural reaction to blame after you've been hurt. The reason God's commandment, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not apply to anything after it is done – only before – is because this law has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary, as part of our development.

 

It is extremely important that we go through a de-confusion process since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment are necessary. At this juncture, I will repeat a passage from Chapter One to clarify certain facts.

[peacegirl]

It is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because at that moment of time he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.

 

Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn't like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. It was impossible to make Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils. They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem.

 

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alterative was considered worse, that he really didn't want to do it but had to (and numerous words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it which means that his preference gave him satisfaction, at that moment of time, for one reason or another. Please bear in mind that although man's will is not free, there is absolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else that causes him to do what he doesn't want to do.

[peacegirl]

The environment does not cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused. The environment is different for him because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once a crime takes place he doesn't come right out and say, "I hurt that person because I wanted to", because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism and punishment of some sort for his desires.

 

Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn't want to do.

[peacegirl]

You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, "Look what you made me do", when you know you didn't make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not include him.

 

Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also true that the boy's awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness – which is exactly what took place – makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn't want.

[peacegirl]

A great confusion exists since it is assumed that by not being blamed man will become less responsible by saying, "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free, in order to justify his actions. This is another aspect of the implications which turned philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical points:

 

"You read my mind. I really don't know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. He could just say, "I'm sorry but I couldn't help myself because my will is not free." If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn't he use it as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility? Or he could use any other excuse he feels will sound believable for the same reason.

 

"This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning because it is mathematically impossible to shift responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something when we know in advance that we will not be blamed for what we do. Is it possible for you to say "I couldn't help myself because my will is not free", when you know that no one is going to say you could help yourself?

[peacegirl]

It is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. In fact, the very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it.

 

They are interested to know why you could do such a thing which compels you, for satisfaction, to think up a reasonable excuse to explain why you did what you did. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you couldn't help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.

[peacegirl]

I will be back soon. I hope you are enjoying this so far.

[peacegirl]

please don't comment until I am finished as it breaks people's train of thought

[Biochemist]

I suddenly think this is a prime thread to have a relocation service for the SCF...

Well, maybe. PG has now evolved into a pretty standard argument (although the quantity of words is absolutely unbelievable.) Speaking in English:

 

1) The world is deterministic (although PG sees "satisfaction" as a core causal agent)

2) Hence, we are not responsible for our actions

3) Hence, we cannot be blamed for our actions

4) Hence, if we recognized that others had no intent to hurt us, we would be empowered not to respond as if they were intending to do so

5) We would then be "determined" through our new understanding to be "satisfied" with the non-response to hurt

6) If only the world understood this truth, all hurt stops.

7) I think we even stop getting wrinkles in our cotton shirts here as well.

 

I am pretty sure I saw this in a fortune cookie once.

[Biochemist]

please don't comment until I am finished as it breaks people's train of thought

I certainly would not want to interrupt such a concise flow of reasoning.

[Fishteacher73]

So boiled down it is a deterministic universe so we should all just get over it and do our thing?

The bastard son of determinism and pacifism?

 

Two ideologies I agree with, but mired in such mystical mumbo jumbo it sounds like the welcome pamphlet for the mmonies or chishnas....

[Biochemist]

...The bastard son of determinism and pacifism?...

It really pisses me off when you say stuff so much more concisely than me. I tried really hard to get this into 6 points, and you got it into 2.

 

Damn.

[Fishteacher73]

Its not that I am more concise...just lazier.... :eek: Yet again just another reason to bask in my gloy.

[bumab]

To gloy! :eek:

 

And anytime someone uses the phrase "bastard son," it's going to be pretty good...

[Biochemist]

To gloy! :eek:

 

And anytime someone uses the phrase "bastard son," it's going to be pretty good...

Gloy again. I am honestly sipping a bourbon right now. I think it was this thread.