[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Our understanding also wouldn't matter if people truly were compelled to behave a certain way ("choosing" the direction of "greater satisfaction," for example), unless our "direction of greater satisfaction" were subjective, and based of what we happen to know at any given time. This is rather problematic for Lessans' claim that this knowledge will suddenly end all conflict in the world, since a great deal of conflict stems from people making good decisions on incomplete information. So, unless we also have some sort of mechanism that allows us to see all the possible consequences of any given choice, then even under this "revolutionary discovery" people will still be making decisions based on incomplete information, which can and will result in conflict, suffering, and all the other things he claims will suddenly be no more in the New Golden Age.

That's false, even though I understand why it would appear that way. The only way people would choose to hurt others in the new world is if by not hurting them, they become losers. For example, in this world if we are hungry and the only way we can survive is by stealing, we will choose to steal, even if it hurts someone else. When this condition is removed by the security being offered by the guarantee (which is spelled out in the economic chapter) --- and everyone will always have the necessaries of life, and also have a chance to increase their standard of living, then this form of first blow is being removed. It is not difficult to understand what a first blow is, but we're not motivated to prevent them because there is something in it for us to strike it, or to take a chance that could lead to striking it. Any more subtle forms of first blows will be carefully analyzed by scientists so that your knowledge will be complete. But even if you make a mistake and accidentally strike a first blow, it doesn't mean the Golden Age will never work. It means that you will correct your mistake when you find out that you have accidentally hurt someone. The only difference is that if you do unintentionally hurt someone, the person or people whom you've hurt will be compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Kael

So, are people truly compelled to not "strike a first blow?" If so, why aren't people already behaving that way? If this compulsion does not kick in until and unless they understand the underlying principles Lessans lays out, then how do they acquire information on how their decisions will affect people, and thus which direction of "greater satisfaction" will avoid "striking a first blow?" Do they obtain such information the same way they do now, or will they be substantially better at making such evaluations once they understand these principles? Or will there be an entirely new source of information about how their choices affect others, far more complete than any they can access now, and thus less prone to causing bad decisions simply from a lack of information?

I really appreciate your questions. Finally, someone is asking something that is relevant. The only principles Lessans actually lays out is the three forms of first blow which need to be understood before becoming a citizen --- hence, the purpose of the examination. 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. There is no way that a person would be able to take advantage of this generous offer since to do so would be hurting those who are there to help him and would be compelled to turn the other cheek if he stole by not trying to find another job that could pay him more and lessen the burden on his fellow citizens.

Originally Posted by Kael

Voila, we won't hurt others!" won't work here, I want to know how Lessans' "discovery" actually addresses the problem of harming others because of inadequate or inaccurate information when making decisions.

Oh my gosh, now you're using the word Voila in this thread too? It's not voila we won't hurt others. We won't hurt others when there's no justification to hurt others. If, by mistake, we take someone's food out of the fridge (e.g., because we had incomplete information that it was meant for someone's lunch), we would correct it so we wouldn't do it again, just like we do in today's world. The biggest change that will occur is the prevention of those hurts that we all know are the serious ones and we have adequate information about such as stealing, murder, poverty, accidents, medical mistakes, etc., which will come to an end as the citizen population increases.