“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?â€
“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 shall
repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts
that must be understood before continuing.
[i]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. 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. Was it possible 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. [/i]
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. 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 toâ€, 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.
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. 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: