To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?
You mentioned the two sides (the fact that nothing can force a person to do anything against his will and the fact that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, but you didn’t explain how the two-sided equation works when these two principles are brought together. And what do you mean by “whether it is or not?”
Nothing can force a person to do anything against his will, and we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment. When this is universally understood, no one will be blamed for anything they do. When this happens, no one will derive greater satisfaction from hurting another, because he will no longer be able to make excuses for his behavior, since no one is blaming him for it. Unable to make excuses, he will have to take full responsibility for what he does. When this happens, no one will find that striking a first blow, or harming another in any way, provides greater satisfaction. So, no one will strike a first blow or harm another. When that happens, no one will retaliate, since there will be nothing and no one to retaliate against.
It's much better than the last summary. Overall, you are beginning to get it, which gives me hope, but most people would laugh at this since there's so much more to it. As I said earlier, the economic system has to be revamped because people have been hurt, therefore in order for this principle to work, all hurt in the economic system (and all other areas of human relations) must be removed in order to remove the justification to strike back.
CHAPTER SIX: THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD
“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”
“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”
“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”
It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.
Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life. Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity) activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows there will be no blame he is not choosing the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves unable to get what we need then we are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to take some of it away. The employer, in turn, who has discovered that the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and reduce unnecessary competition; otherwise, a recession and perhaps depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look, man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow. To clarify this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when lay-offs occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this aspect of justification has been removed and it then becomes possible to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will be no blame which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good (not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises at this point: “How can we create an environment that would remove the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils as a solution to our problems?”
“I really don’t know, especially since you already said that the basic principle cannot be used here.”
“It can’t be used in a positive, but it can in a negative sense. Obviously, before the removal of all blame can prevent man from desiring to strike a first blow which is to gain (to improve his standard of living) at the expense of others, it is absolutely necessary to remove the possibility that an individual is necessarily hurting others in order to prevent himself from becoming a loser (from going below his standard of living), and there is only one way this can be accomplished. Let me explain what I mean.
The problem is that people barge into this thread and tell me that peace is impossible without coming close to understanding the proof. It's a free for all. Any true philosopher is well aware that carefully studying someone's work is first and foremost before commenting on it.
