[i]It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right
and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard
such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of
God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently you have come
to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these
words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it
possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless
religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder is
committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a
certain point in his life considered better for himself under
circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks
involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates
by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong,
just what gave greater satisfaction. Neither the government or the
murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their
particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to
think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not
on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong,
but solely on whether the conditions under which they were
previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as
before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion
of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to
assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it
would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this
knowledge.
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it was not for
the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking
more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more
a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from
satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will
be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous
example it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot
desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going
to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from
spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to
watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000
for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely
nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”
“These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is
mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would
you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to
retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this
question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will
continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will
understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be
entirely prevented by this natural law.”
“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far,
I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from
stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no
more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible
for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his
conduct?”
“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon —
but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did
something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”
“I certainly would be justified.”
“And we also have agreed that this is the principle of an eye for
an eye, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Which means that this principle, an eye for an eye, does not
concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but
only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?”
“Yes it is.”
“And the principle of turning the other cheek, doesn’t this
concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck,
not the first cheek?”
“That is absolutely true.”
“Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to
strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our
problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need
to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to
understand?”
“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can
even see that relation.”
“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this
first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has
already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would
have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be
risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that
correct?”
“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”
“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of
risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not
take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t
know who to blame but if he did, you could expect that he would
desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate an eye
for an eye is an undeniable condition of our present world as is also
your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however
small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is
risky you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain
desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted,
shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized,
reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but
this is the price you are willing to pay, if caught. Can you disagree
with this?”
“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to
plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”
“I am not denying the possibility but you can never know for
certain, therefore the element of risk must exist when you do
anything that hurts another.”
“Then I agree.” [/i]