I’m not exactly sure what you are saying in 'alternatives will happen that seek to establish the same end, but after compromising. Obviously, we are a thinking species that is constantly choosing between alternatives. Raw passion is controlled by conscience, but in our free will society, it often did not matter who was hurt as long as our needs got met. In the new world, this will be impossible. There is an entire chapter on dating and marriage. So many changes are going to be made that it’s hard to answer these questions without creating more questions. Any other kind of raw passion (such as a desire for a creative endeavor) is given full expression in this world because no one will be standing in anyone’s way or telling them what to do.
There is nothing more diplomatic than solving international conflict that can be sustained by a universal law that supercedes all manmade laws.
Sauwelios is correct in saying that there is no “consequentialism” stopping a violent act. Which is to say, the only thing that I should allow to stop me is my own decision. There is only my decision, and that is all that is important.
It’s knowing that there will be no consequences because the world knows will is not free, that creates consequences that are much worse than punishment. That is why this higher law is so powerful.
But individual wills must, and do, conspire together for power, as Nietzsche put it. It is here that diplomacy occurs and rational control over the passions. A Nietzschean ethic, ironically, only works out in practice and not in theory- his ethics are ethics which ignore consequence and order. In theory, there should be no compromising or submission, since this is degenerate and weak.
We are not talking about compromising or submission. We are talking about a world where there is freedom to do anything one wants to do. Order comes as a result of knowing that one will not desire to step over the line of his freedom and another’s freedom.
In such a scenario, society and civilization is just a waiting period until total dissolution. No wonder, then, that PG is correct in that ethical decisions are not involuntary acts of power and will force only, but rational choices occuring within an economic system or dynamic. Only after a large society is formed can Nietzsche’s ethical system take life and begin working. The conspiring for power is now a secular expression of the same dynamic that allowed for the organization of the society in which the secular ethics take life. Although all acts of will are not answerable to anyone else, they tend to compromise and enter into diplomacy, agreement, mutual consent, and negotiation.
Negotiation and agreement will still exist, but once the agreement is made, both parties know that if they break it no one will blame. The only difference between the two worlds is one uses blame and punishment to try to get a desired outcome (which doesn’t always work as we all know), and the other uses no blame which does get the desired result.
You may say that the intellect here is just another expression of will, and it is of course. But the moment this will begins coresponding with another will, it becomes social.
[/quote]
And social is where the dividing line begins. My desires will not infringe on your desires because I will no longer desire to gain at your expense. This is where the line will be drawn not by laws, but by my very own conscience.