A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You do understand, don't you, that I can very easily use Lessans reasoning to argue that man has free will? That's how poor his reasoning is, it could just as easily "prove" the opposite of what he asserting.

Would you like me to do so?

This remark is so funny. When this knowledge actually prevents war and crime, will you say his reasoning was poor, or will you eat your words?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No kidding. That's why I didn't just say it, but also demonstrated it by showing you exactly where and how you did so.

You demonstrated nothing Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this can be seen by those who are not caught up in their own faulty logic. You are entrenched in your false reasoning which makes you conclude that Lessans reasoning was wrong. But it is yours that is wrong and you are blind to it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More faith claims and assertions. You are just dogmatically asserting that my reasoning and logic must be wrong because it refutes Lessans. You still can't show how or why my reasoning or logic is allegedly flawed.

Oh my god, you are in denial. You are trying to tell me that man is not compelled to choose what he does, which is wrong right there and I showed you where there is no freedom even in those choices that don't appear to have a strong compulsion attached to it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does rule it out. You just don't see it because it's not a strong compulsion so you think that it's a free choice, but you are wrong. The same principle applies regardless of the strength of the compulsion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My objection here has absolutely NOTHING to do with the strength of the compulsion.

But it does, because you said that only those actions that cannot be changed when new antecedent conditions are presented, are excused. This has to do with strength of compulsion. You're trying to make it appear that a person who does not meet this requirement, has no compulsion. That's where you are confused.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There can be no compulsion at all implied by a principle which holds true in every conceivable circumstance.

Of course it can. The compulsion is different in every conceivable circumstance because every circumstance presents new antecent conditions that have to be weighed. But we're still under a compulsion to choose that which is the most preferable among meaningful differences.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If we weigh up all the pros and cons and choose water, then that is acting in the direction of greater satisfaction. And if we weigh up all the pros and cons and choose milk, then that too is acting in the direction of greater satisfaction. So acting in the direction of greater satisfaction does not alone determine which of these two choices will be made. It cannot determine the outcome when there is nothing that it rules out.

No, we cannot determine what choice someone else will make. That's not part of the requirement. It's only necessary to know that it is the person who is making the choice that is moving in this direction. The only time it can determine the outcome is when it comes to moral responsibility because humans cannot cross the line of hurting others without justification. The new antecedent conditions of a no blame environment in place of the old antecedent conditions of a blame filled environment will have a huge impact on what choices will be considered the most preferable as one weighs the potential consequences of each choice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's fallacious Spacemonkey. There is a trememdous amount of empirical content to the notion of greater satisfaction. That's what Lessans is trying to show.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More faith claims and blind incomprehension. A principle with no falsification criteria and which is therefore true in all conceivable circumstances has, BY DEFINITION, NO empirical content, and therefore cannot be used to soundly infer anything else with empirical content.

But "greater satisfaction" is clearly an observable phenomenon even though it cannot be falsified. As I said before, something is wrong with your criteria of what is sound and what can be used in a mathematical equation to infer other things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand logical necessity more than you do, so don't play this game with me. Greater satisfaction does not change over time, although the factors that determine what gives one greater satisfaction does change over time depending on the antecedent conditions involved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't be absurd. You don't know anything about logical necessity or possibility. You just said that the logical possibilities (and not merely greater satisfaction or the factors that determine it) change over time. That also is false by definition.

I am not being absurd. You can have as many logical possibilities as you can think of, but only one choice can be made each and every moment of time. Just one, not two, or three, or four. That means that once a choice is made, those other choices could not have been made at that moment because they were not preferred when compared to other meaningful choices in comparison. My statement makes sense and that's why you don't like it. You don't want to give me any credit because that would discredit you, and you can't handle that.

[Spacemonkey]

Get help, Peacegirl. You really are completely insane.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not being absurd. You can have as many logical possibilities as you can think of, but only one choice can be made each and every moment of time. Just one, not two, or three, or four. That means that once a choice is made, those other choices could not have been made at that moment because they were not preferred when compared to other meaningful choices in comparison. My statement makes sense and that's why you don't like it. You don't want to give me any credit because that would discredit you, and you can't handle that.

Once a choice has been made, free will vs determinism is moot. The debate of free will vs determinism can only be valid in the present and future. You are not eliminating free will with what you are arguing, you are eliminating the point of argument. The past (once the choice has been made) is the only point of consideration that is NOT relevant to the debate.

No one is arguing that the past can't be changed. You can have free will up the wazoo and still not be able to change the past. If you want to be taken seriously you need to a) be relevant b) be able to carry a train of thought.

The only revolution in thought I've seen from you is a literal revolution. A roundabout cycle that revolves around your circular logic without even the fun of a spiral that actually moves to a different level of circle. You are perfectly round. A true revolution.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This remark is so funny. When this knowledge actually prevents war and crime, will you say his reasoning was poor, or will you eat your words?

I am not too worried about that happening

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Good try, but you can't compare this to what Lessans is demonstrating. There is an obvious compulsion to choose that which is most preferable among meaningful differences. It is this difference that compels us to desire weighing the pros and cons of each choice. If the choice is inconsequential, then the compulsion would not be obvious. In the example of milk over juice, my preference for one or the other doesn't really matter to anyone, especially since my choice is not a moral one. That being said, the preference for milk over juice is still a compulsion in the direction of greater satisfaction because I am choosing that which is the most preferable at that moment. I cannot choose that which is least preferable anytime I make a comparison. To repeat: The entire reason for weighing options is to help one decide which choice is the most preferable under the circumstances, otherwise there would be no need for this comparison. If I was choosing between two things that had no meaningful difference, it would be like comparing A and A, or comparing a red apple to a red apple. Because there are no preferable differences, either choice would be satisfactory.

Sorry, but my observations are spot on: people are compelled by yellow, not by satisfaction. While you might say they choose milk over orange juice because of satisfaction, it is actually because they believe milk will add more yellow to their lives. You will have to do better than that.

[LadyShea]

Our will is free, if it weren't free we would at least sometimes be compelled to act against that which leads to satisfaction or choose that which is least preferable because we have would have no control...but that never happens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Get help, Peacegirl. You really are completely insane.

I really have nothing more to say to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Our will is free, if it weren't free we would at least sometimes be compelled to act against that which leads to satisfaction or choose that which is least preferable because we have would have no control...but that never happens.

We are sometimes compelled to act against that which leads to satisfaction because the alternative is worse in our judgment. This does not in any way contradict determinism. That is called the lesser of two evils LadyShea. In choosing that which is least preferable, it is actually the most preferable when compared to the other options that are available. You cannot win here because this is an immutable law of nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

Once a choice has been made, free will vs determinism is moot. The debate of free will vs determinism can only be valid in the present and future. You are not eliminating free will with what you are arguing, you are eliminating the point of argument. The past (once the choice has been made) is the only point of consideration that is NOT relevant to the debate.

The point of argument is whether or not we have a free choice, and the answer is NO. This is the only consideration that is relevant to the debate. The argument for free will states that there is more than one logical possibility. There can be many logical possibilities, but there is only one choice that can be made each and every moment of time --- and that is the choice that is the most preferable according to our particular vantage point. Therefore, free will is an illusion. If what one chooses is ultimately the only choice that one could have made (taking into consideration all of the logically possible choices available), it has major implications for our world.

Originally Posted by koan

No one is arguing that the past can't be changed.

But that is the key. People are arguing that a different choice is logically possible before the fact, which is true up until the moment of choice, but that does not mean we have free will. Lessans was very clear about this. He clarified that if we say, "I did it of my own free will" it only means "I did it because I wanted to" (there was no pressure on me to make that choice), but this does not mean we actually have freedom of the will. Further, if I am about to choose something but after reconsidering I change my mind and pick a different option, this doesn't mean my will is free. We are always evaluating and re-evaluating our options up until the moment of choice, and we usually get better at contemplation the older we get, knowing how easy it is to make mistakes when we don't have the necessary information that goes into making a wise choice.

Originally Posted by koan

You can have free will up the wazoo and still not be able to change the past. If you want to be taken seriously you need to a) be relevant b) be able to carry a train of thought.

You are getting confused as to what free will and determinism mean. Just because you have an array of options at your disposal (logical possibilities), and just because you can act on anyone of those possibilities if you so choose, does not mean your will is free.

Originally Posted by koan

The only revolution in thought I've seen from you is a literal revolution. A roundabout cycle that revolves around your circular logic without even the fun of a spiral that actually moves to a different level of circle. You are perfectly round. A true revolution.

And this comes from someone who thinks she understands this book. Having to deal with this kind of ignorance is very difficult for me and is ruining this thread. Is it any wonder I haven't gotten anywhere?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sorry, but my observations are spot on: people are compelled by yellow, not by satisfaction. While you might say they choose milk over orange juice because of satisfaction, it is actually because they believe milk will add more yellow to their lives. You will have to do better than that.

If the general belief is that milk will add more yellow to people's lives, then they will choose milk over juice. What we choose in this direction of greater satisfaction is often based on our beliefs, whether true or false.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not my subjective interpretation. If someone does something and couldn't do otherwise because he was caused to do it, can he be blamed for doing that which he was caused to do? If a piece of equipment was built to do something in a certain way, and it does it exactly as it was programmed to do, can we blame it for doing that which it had no control over doing? Don't overthink this. Just answer the question.

The answer to both questions is yes, we can. Why would you think otherwise?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not observations that came out of his hat.

I agree. It is highly unlikely that he pulled those observations out of his hat, unless he was in the habit of wearing his hat on ass.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BTW, with all the threads out there, why do you keep coming back to this one?

For the lulz?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hey peacegirl, how do we tell the difference between a person making a free choice and a person making a not-free choice?

Look at the hat.

Also, check the program notes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

dupe

LadyShea, that was very rude of you. You don't have to resort to name-calling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are the agent making the choice. We can't say something made us choose this or that without our permission (Lessans' second principle), but this does not make our will free in any sense of the word.

Actually, that makes our will free in nearly every sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're wrong; people act to maximise the amount if yellow in their lives. It might look like people make choices that don't maximise the yellow in their lives, and some may even report acting to decrease the amount if yellow, but really they are always compelled to choose the most yellow increasing option.

You sir, are a damned heretic. The color is BLUE. You are going to burn for an eternity in your yellow hell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused as to what free will and determinism mean. Just because you have an array of options at your disposal (logical possibilities), and just because you can act on anyone of those possibilities if you so choose, does not mean your will is free.

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really have nothing more to say to you.

Good. Let's see you stick to that this time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The answer to both questions is yes, we can. Why would you think otherwise?

Because there would be no justification. I understand the compatibilist reasons for blaming. They believe theats of blame influences people's actions in a deterministic framework, but that's not following the principle of "no blame" to see where it leads. Instead they are stuck on blaming as a justification for increasing moral responsibility when it is only a weak deterrent, at best.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are not observations that came out of his hat.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I agree. It is highly unlikely that he pulled those observations out of his hat, unless he was in the habit of wearing his hat on ass.

You're starting to get nasy again Angakuk. Watch what you say or I'm going to pass over your posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the lulz?

Because this is my thread and I have spent a lot of time here. I have that right. People will never admit they are interested in this discovery when the pressure to go along with the group sentiment is very strong. I can only count on people's questions that never seem to end. It's a neverending story of people saying I should leave yet they keep this thread alive and then blame me for answering. I never heard of the word lutz before. Is that some kind of slang for "making fun of"?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hey peacegirl, how do we tell the difference between a person making a free choice and a person making a not-free choice?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Look at the hat.

Also, check the program notes.

LadyShea, that was very rude of you. You don't have to resort to name-calling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are the agent making the choice. We can't say something made us choose this or that without our permission (Lessans' second principle), but this does not make our will free in any sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, that makes our will free in nearly every sense of the word.

Actually, if you understood these principles at all Angakuk, you would see that it doesn't. It only means that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That does not make his will free because his desire not to drink is in the direction of greater satisfaction, which he has no control over.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're wrong; people act to maximise the amount if yellow in their lives. It might look like people make choices that don't maximise the yellow in their lives, and some may even report acting to decrease the amount if yellow, but really they are always compelled to choose the most yellow increasing option.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You sir, are a damned heretic. The color is BLUE. You are going to burn for an eternity in your yellow hell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused as to what free will and determinism mean. Just because you have an array of options at your disposal (logical possibilities), and just because you can act on anyone of those possibilities if you so choose, does not mean your will is free.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

It does not. It is the conventional definition of free will, but Lessans is showing that just because we can choose free of experienced compulsion or force of any kind does not make our will free.

p. 45 We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will.

[LadyShea]

Because this is my thread and I have spent a lot of time here. I have that right. People will never admit they are interested in this discovery when the pressure to go along with the group sentiment is very strong. I can only count on people's questions that never seem to end. It's a neverending story of people saying I should leave yet they keep this thread alive and then blame me for answering. I never heard of the word lutz before. Is that some kind of slang for "making fun of"?

You answered your own question. You asked me "BTW, with all the threads out there, why do you keep coming back to this one? " and Angukuk answered "for the lulz". Then you messed up the quotes and responded to yourself.

lulz= multiple lol= laughs
Some of us will keep talking as long as you keep talking... for the laughs

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there would be no justification.

And this matters, why?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, if you understood these principles at all Angakuk, you would see that it doesn't. It only means that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That does not make his will free because his desire not to drink is in the direction of greater satisfaction, which he has no control over.

That is not an established fact. It is, rather, the very claim that is in contention. You can't use a disputed claim to defend the claim that is being disputed. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't work at all well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not. It is the conventional definition of free will, but Lessans is showing that just because we can choose free of experienced compulsion or force of any kind does not make our will free.

Like I said, that is exactly what it means. Lessans has not 'shown' anything. He has simply made a series of unsubstantiated claims.

There is no proof because the pudding is inedible.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The compulsion to not strike a first blow will come when those who become citizens know that they have signed a contract not to blame anyone for anything. In exchange they will receive their guarantee that if they should fall below their present standard of living, the citizens of this new world will help them in their time of need.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me.

I know Lessans' views on determinism and blame. (I disagree, but for present purposes we can set that aside.) Since people lack free will, blame is nonsensical. After all, why blame someone for acting a certain way when s/he could not have acted otherwise?

And that's where the two-sided equation comes in. Based on how human conscience works (again, I disagree with Lessans, but that's another bundle o' laundry), I must hold myself accountable for the harm I cause where I know in advance that no one else will hold me accountable. Under those conditions, the thought of the torment my own conscience would deliver prevents me from from doing anything hurtful in the first place.

However, Lessans also wrote that the no-blame corollary only applies before a hurtful act. Once the act is committed and the hurt delivered, all bets are off and retaliation (blame) is justified.

Seems to me that derails the two-sided equation pretty hard. The equation is based on knowledge that no one will blame me for my actions. However, that isn't true; if I do inflict harm, then I know that I will be blamed. Thus, the conscience-based deterrence Lessans spoke of would never kick in.

So then, for the two-sided equation to work as Lessans said it would, we need some sort of guarantee that we won't be blamed for inflicting harm even though such blame would be justified. What, exactly, is that guarantee?

There's gotta be more to it than merely signing a contract promising not to blame. People breach contracts all the time, and the concern is all the more prevalent here given Lessans' apparent acknowledgement that blaming in response to harm (actual or perceived) is part of the human condition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You answered your own question. You asked me "BTW, with all the threads out there, why do you keep coming back to this one? " and Angukuk answered "for the lulz". Then you messed up the quotes and responded to yourself.

lulz= multiple lol= laughs
Some of us will keep talking as long as you keep talking... for the laughs

There goes Miss Know It All talking shit once again, as if she knows what she's talking about. Unfortunately, she is the worst type of know it all there is because of her proud know it all demeanor. She is the kind that thinks she knows because she puts herself on a scientific pedestal (in contrast to the woos of the world who she looks down upon in order to raise herself up), but knows absolutely nothing when it comes to determining truth from fiction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There goes Miss Know It All talking shit once again, as if she knows what she's talking about. Unfortunately, she is the worst type of know it all there is because of her proud know it all demeanor. She is the kind that thinks she knows because she puts herself on a scientific pedestal (in contrast to the woos of the world who she looks down upon in order to raise herself up), but knows absolutely nothing when it comes to determining truth from fiction.

I answered your question about the term lulz. Would you prefer a more authoritative source?

Here's a Wiki LOL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variants of LOL
lul: phonetic spelling of LOL
lolz: Occasionally used in place of LOL.
lulz: Often used to denote laughter at someone who is the victim of a prank, or a reason for performing an action. This variation is often used on the Encyclopedia dramatica wiki and 4chan image boards. According to a New York Times article about Internet trolling, "lulz means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium."[31] Can be used as a noun — e.g. "do it for the lulz.", shortened into "ftlulz" (to distinguish it from "ftl" - "for the lose").[32][33] See also LulzSec.

Did you make rather merry yesterday and so are feeling poorly today? You are a little more unhinged than usual.

If, on the other hand, these are the first steps toward a drama exit flail, I'll need to post an alert.

[Stephen Maturin]

The centiShakes scale hasn't gotten much use lately.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And this matters, why?

You should know the answer by now. People need some kind of justification to hurt others, even if it's unconscious or difficult to identify because there is not always an obvious correlation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are the agent making the choice. We can't say something made us choose this or that without our permission (Lessans' second principle), but this does not make our will free in any sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, that makes our will free in nearly every sense of the word.

Actually, if you understood these principles at all Angakuk, you would see that it doesn't. It only means that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That does not make his will free because his desire not to drink is in the direction of greater satisfaction, which he has no control over.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is not an established fact. It is, rather, the very claim that is in contention. You can't use a disputed claim to defend the claim that is being disputed. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't work at all well.

I have bent over backwards to try and explain that every movement in life is in this direction, not just when making choices. Until you see that we can only move off of the spot called "here" to a more satisfying spot than what the present position offers (or we would remain where we are because we would be satisfied), you will not see that this observation is accurate, and therefore you and others will continue to argue that this is a modal fallacy, which it is not. There is no actual and necessary in this demonstration. Every move we make (from the slightest reflex to all inner and outer movements) is necessary, not just when we are choosing between alternatives. This just gives the illusion of choice, but we still are compelled to go in the same direction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting confused as to what free will and determinism mean. Just because you have an array of options at your disposal (logical possibilities), and just because you can act on anyone of those possibilities if you so choose, does not mean your will is free.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

It does not. It is the conventional definition of free will, but Lessans is showing that just because we can choose free of experienced compulsion or force of any kind does not make our will free.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Like I said, that is exactly what it means. Lessans has not 'shown' anything. He has simply made a series of unsubstantiated claims.

There is no proof because the pudding is inedible.

Sorry, but you just don't have a taste for the pudding, which is understandable since everyone is defending his own idiosyncratic worldview. And you don't have to turn this around on me, which you are accustomed to doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I answered your question about the term lulz. Would you prefer a more authoritative source?

Here's a Wiki LOL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you make rather merry yesterday and so are feeling poorly today? You are a little more unhinged than usual.

If, on the other hand, these are the first steps toward a drama exit flail, I'll need to post an alert.

The reason I couldn't find the definition is I spelled it lutz, and kept getting an ice skating move. hahaha People must be really bored if they have nothing better to do than disrupt other people's emotional equilibrium as a fun thing to do. That's a very lofty goal.

I'm not feeling poorly today. I'm just coming to the realization that being here is a lost cause. All I will ever get is the same old arguments that do not even come close to proving Lessans wrong.

[LadyShea]

I'm just coming to the realization that being here is a lost cause.

You are just coming to that realization again, huh. How many times are you going to re-realize the very same fact?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Perhaps you can clear something up for me.

I know Lessans' views on determinism and blame. (I disagree, but for present purposes we can set that aside.) Since people lack free will, blame is nonsensical. After all, why blame someone for acting a certain way when s/he could not have acted otherwise?

And that's where the two-sided equation comes in. Based on how human conscience works (again, I disagree with Lessans, but that's another bundle o' laundry), I must hold myself accountable for the harm I cause where I know in advance that no one else will hold me accountable. Under those conditions, the thought of the torment my own conscience would deliver prevents me from from doing anything hurtful in the first place.

However, Lessans also wrote that the no-blame corollary only applies before a hurtful act. Once the act is committed and the hurt delivered, all bets are off and retaliation (blame) is justified.

Seems to me that derails the two-sided equation pretty hard. The equation is based on knowledge that no one will blame me for my actions. However, that isn't true; if I do inflict harm, then I know that I will be blamed. Thus, the conscience-based deterrence Lessans spoke of would never kick in.

No, that's not it but you're getting really warm. I am glad you are at least beginning to understand. Blame and retaliation are part of a free will environment. What prevents the action is the knowledge that if someone hurts another with a first blow, he will not be retaliated upon (that's the key) because we know his will is not free, therefore, we are compelled to desire turning the other cheek, not strike back. That's why people must sign the agreement that during the transition, they will not blame anybody for anything, and will need to turn the other cheek, although the police will still be a presence in society until everyone has become a citizen of the new world.

p. 84 The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking a
first blow since his will is not free — when he knows that nobody,
absolutely nothing, can compel him to hurt another this way unless
he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control — enters
a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human
relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for
which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.
Remember, it takes two to tango — each person and the rest of
mankind — therefore this discovery which prevents man from desiring
to hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance, as a matter
of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or punished no
matter what he does.

“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are
perfectly justified in striking back?”

“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is
compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”

“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another
if he doesn’t want to.”

“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is completely
beyond his control because it is now known man’s will is not free?”

“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me I must turn
the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”

“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify some
form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt you is
moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”

“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you, if I
don’t want to.”

“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge what
you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t know what gives you
greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that
should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must also
take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will
I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing
what I know you are compelled to do, since your will is not free.”

“Now I get it. Then when I fully realize that under no conditions
will you ever strike back because you must excuse what you know I am
compelled to do — when I know that I am not compelled to hurt you
unless I want to for over this I have mathematical control — I am
given no alternative but to forgo the desire to hurt you simply because,
under the new conditions, it is impossible for me to derive even the
smallest amount of satisfaction.”

“Wonderful! If each reader would understand this basic principle,
then he would be able to follow me as I extend the corollary into every
part of our lives.” [Note: It may seem like a contradiction when in
the previous dialogue I say we are not justified in striking back and at
the end of this chapter I say we are. Please understand that I am
extending the basic principle to show how this law of our nature can
prevent the first cheek from ever being struck. If our cheek has not
been struck, there is no need to strike back. If you find it confusing
as to how the basic principle prevents the desire to hurt others as a
preferable alternative, it is imperative that you reread this chapter in
order to grasp the two-sided equation, which is the very foundation of
this discovery. Until this natural law becomes a permanent condition
of the environment, we will be unable to prevent the first blow from
being struck which, in turn, gives justification to retaliate].

As we
follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an
infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and wrong while
solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the
mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when
we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of
blame which include this judging in advance of what is right and
wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from
being struck. This corollary is not only effective by your realization
that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us,
but also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of
what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it is
impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right for
someone else.

But remember, it is not the knowledge that man’s will
is not free that compels him to give up this judging in advance what
is right for others, otherwise the government, the unions, the
religions, all the writers who make a living expressing their opinions
as to what is right and wrong with the world, with love, marriage,
children, business, education, etc., would suddenly give up their
manner of earning a living which is a mathematical impossibility. Do
you think that the manufacturers of candles and other inferior forms
of lighting wanted to give up what gave them a source of income when
electricity was discovered? They were compelled to adjust because they
couldn’t find a market for their obsolete products except on a smaller
scale.

Do you think the adulterers want to give up their fun, the single
males the pleasure of sexual intercourse before marriage? Do you
think the people who are getting wealthy on the sweat, brawn, tears
and insecurity of extremely low wages will give this up just because
God thunders down from heaven — Thou Shall Not Blame? Do you
think that religion will willingly give up its great power and influence
when it is learned that the will of man is not free — which reveals that
God is a mathematical reality? The truth of the matter is that
everyone will be compelled of his own free will to give up anything that
hurts another in any way simply because this hurt will be considered
worse under the new conditions. This, my friends, is the great secret
of God’s infinite wisdom, which gives man no free choice as to the
direction he must travel for greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So then, for the two-sided equation to work as Lessans said it would, we need some sort of guarantee that we won't be blamed for inflicting harm even though such blame would be justified. What, exactly, is that guarantee?

There's gotta be more to it than merely signing a contract promising not to blame. People breach contracts all the time, and the concern is all the more prevalent here given Lessans' apparent acknowledgement that blaming in response to harm (actual or perceived) is part of the human condition.

Blaming is a natural response to the human condition, but you are assuming that people will be hurt, for which blame would be necessary. Ironically, it is the very knowledge that people will not blame no matter what is done to them which removes the justification to do that which is harmful. The signing of the contract is a necessary condition, but what keeps a person from breaking this agreement is the knowledge that he would be striking a first blow while receiving his guarantee. This he cannot justify.

p. 171 When this
test has been passed and the person signs a statement that he will
never again blame another citizen for anything, he himself becomes
a citizen by receiving an identification number which is placed on a
card to be worn on the outside and on tags for his car that tell the
authorities he has taken the examination. The purpose of this
identification is to separate citizens from non-citizens during the
transition period. Actually, this test is very easy to understand, even
by young children. The two-sided equation is explicitly revealed in
Chapter Two; the first blow is anything to gain at the expense of
others after the guarantee has been installed; the last form of first
blow reveals who has the right-of-way when desires conflict, which will
be explained in more detail shortly. If a person is incapable of passing
the exam, someone would have to assume responsibility for him in
order for this guarantee to be issued. There can be no punishment
should the new citizen break this agreement and not turn the other
cheek during this time of transition, but how is it possible for him to
break this or any agreement when he knows there will be no blame for
striking this first blow. This needs clarification.

When any agreement is made in the new world, the people who are
a party to it are saying, “I am satisfied with this agreement and will
never blame you should you violate it.” If you don’t want to become
a citizen of this new world, don’t want to receive this guarantee, don’t
want to agree never to blame, then you don’t have to sign this
agreement and will continue living in your present environment. But
should you sign this agreement, how is it possible for you to desire
breaking it by not turning the other cheek when turning the other
cheek offers greater satisfaction as this is the kind of punishment
those who strike a first blow cannot tolerate. The truck driver wanted
to be punished for doing what he knows was his responsibility because
this would give him greater satisfaction.

As was explained in Chapter
Two, “The knowledge that there will be no consequences presents
consequences that are still worse, making it impossible to consider this
hurt as a preferable alternative.” However, in order for the new citizen
not to be blamed by his government, and in order for his government
not to be blamed by the governments of other nations, the political
and military leaders of the world must become our first citizens. How
is it possible for political leaders to stop blaming other political leaders
and the people in their country unless the leaders have received the
guarantee and signed the agreement? Therefore, the world leaders
must take their examination first because it is only by the new citizen
knowing he will never be blamed by the government or the laws of his
country no matter what he does to hurt others that will prevent him
from desiring to do that for which punishment came into existence,
taking for granted, of course, that the other source of justification,
being made to go below his standard of living, has already been
removed.

This will prevent the possibility of further wars because the
very people who have the power to start one will be stopped by the
guarantee which denies them any justification and by their realization
that there will be no retaliation by those who must turn the other
cheek for their satisfaction. When the time arrives for the leaders of
the world to sign this agreement, which will be done simultaneously,
they will be extremely happy and anxious for this new world to begin.
But remember, ironically enough, under the changed conditions the
leaders are prevented from hurting others not because there will be no
retaliation, but primarily because they will get greater satisfaction in
being a part of this fantastic new world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just coming to the realization that being here is a lost cause.

Again? Do you realize how many times you've already come to this exact same realization? How many times are you going to keep coming to this same realization without it ever having any actual effect upon what you are doing?