So I've been thinking about when someone is justified to owning something, and this is my thought process (sorry if this is not the intended use of this community):
Imagine a person who finds a rock on the ground, when he picks it up & uses it to hurt another person they are morally culpable. Comparably, that same person has a body & if they use that body to hurt someone, they are morally culpable as well. It’s hard to say that people don’t own their body, as in they have the moral right to keep & use something (the body), since it’s an extension of their consciousness. How & when someone owns something is important, since the right of property is seen as a fundamental right & is the bedrock of our capitalist society. So using something we fundamentally agree is something that someone owns, we can to understand why & apply it to other things. When comparing these two examples, we’ll understand that what makes ownership exist is if it is used as a tool. Simply because the ownership of the body can be compared to an ownership of an item, which is especially explicit in a moral example in isolation.
Let’s say there’s someone named Elthri, and they will painlessly separate the arm of someone named Kral — which Kral does not want, however would be extremely useful for Elthri to use. This is to avoid other variables, such consequentialist thought of net harm; we’ll treat this as a net-zero in positive or negative outcomes. Everyone agrees, unless someone prescribes to an esoteric philosophy, that Elthri does not have any moral right to take away Kral’s arm for one reason: he has ownership of that arm; it’s his arm. The reason it’s his arm is that it’s connected to his consciousness, it’s a part of his moral weight — it’s an extension of his consciousness. That’s the same reason we can prescribe moral weight to his body, it’s an extension of his consciousness — if not that means if he punches someone he cannot be morally culpable. Since a disagreement of this premise necessarily means his hand hitting someone is not connected to his consciousness, meaning they are not morally capable. Him, as a person, cannot be blamed.
Items work the same way: when someone picks up a rock & hits someone with it, they are still morally culpable. The rock becomes an extension of the person’s consciousness. The only real difference is that the body gives sensory details to our experience, while we can only externally feel the rock. However, in the scenario Elthri & Kral scenario pain (or senses in general) is not the reason for why Elthri cannot keep Kral’s arm — meaning we must conclude that the extension to our consciousness is the actual reason something becomes owned. Kral owns his arm because it’s an extension of him, the same way a rock can be.
However, when does something become an extension of another person is still a standing question. Hurting someone is an obvious example, since there is moral weight, it’s easy to see the extension, but in the input, process, or result of hurting someone when does it become owned? The only answer is that it’s used as a tool, our body is inherently a tool because we must necessarily use it.
A rock is used, it becomes a tool, which means it becomes owned. In the rock-hurting example, it cannot be the outcome (as in hurting someone) in of itself, since someone can have a body but never have a moral outcome in a vacuum but still own their body. It cannot be the person’s effect on the rock, since a person who cannot feel, move, essentially cannot affect their body still owns it. However, the use of the body as a vessel means it is used meaning it’s a tool, meaning it’s explainable through tool-ownership.
I coin this as thinking as tool-ownership, unless it’s already an established philosophy that already has a name. Which is, in a vacuum, the use of a thing as a tool means the person owns the thing.
I feel there still is a misunderstanding. I do not disagree with ownership of one's body. I feel it is exactly your extrapolation which is questionable. I will number my points, and implore you to number your responses to coordinate each point to its rebuttal:
You posit a definition of moral ownership. You define that, initially, as: being the first to "use" the object in question as a "tool", i.e. an extension of ones body. If you would like to refine that definition, succinctly, please do so.
If primacy is morality, "licking all the doughnuts in the box" is a valid claim to ownership. Turn the lake into concrete, chop down the forest, plant a flag in a continent. Dibs is the law. Finders keepers.
It doesn't functionally matter who's first, all that matters is who had possession the first time a "tribe"(king, state, nation, empire) started to keep records. Manifest destiny, lay claim by violence, once there's a government to enforce ownership you can call "base" and since you're "first" your claim is legitimate.
I steal your shoes. My claim of ownership is immoral. I sell your shoes. The buyer bought them fair and square, so their claim of ownership is moral.
If possession with intent to sell counts as "use", where's the line? I claim all objects not presently being used as mine, and it's all for sale. All vacant property not presently in the market, every abandoned car, every forgotten hammer is now mine and I intend to sell it. What do you mean by "use" that logically applies to merchandise that doesn't apply in this example?
It seems when you find conflicts above, you wash your hands of it by saying the actions are immoral so they don't count. Who decides? You? Whenever there's a conflict of interest, do we have to phone you up and get your opinion? Isn't the whole point of a moral definition to have some objective bedrock to rely on? What is the "popular moral opinion of the general person"? This is a point of major historic contention, have you solved it definitively, or are you relying on your personal opinion to be representative of everyone?
Ultimately. What your ethos is pointing to is literally socialism. The workers own the means of production. That is, the people who use the tools, own the tools. All raw materials are shared, and value is explicitly based on extending one's will to use those materials. If this is not your intention, please demonstrate logically why this interpretation is incompatible
"When something is initially used in a physical manner"
Moral ownership is manifested.
When someone chops down a forest, it is not the forest itself that is used, but rather the tool used to fell the trees.
Placing a flag on land involves the use of both the flag and the small patch of dirt on the continent where the flag is situated. Not the whole continent.
You are correct that the first person to discover something is entitled to ownership if they use it. The reason I previously disagreed was because "finders keepers" is often invoked to justify taking something that already has an original owner who is not present to defend their ownership. Tool-ownership posits the existence of a rightful owner, and this ownership can only be relinquished under specific conditions that don't align with body-ownership or precedent of the already established concepts.
An individual can have demonstrable ownership over something, such as a sharp rock used for cutting or a cave serving as their dwelling. In such cases, there is likely to be ample evidence of their ownership. The ownership of Native Americans in America was evident, meaning that Manifest Destiny merely resulted in illegitimate claims of ownership.
No, the person acquired illegitimate ownership of the shoes, which means they cannot transfer moral ownership.
Let's consider a scenario where Elthri places a brick above a door and invites Kral inside with the intention of causing harm. Elthri's action is immoral because it stems from his consciousness; otherwise, he would not be morally culpable. Even though he did not directly harm anyone, he set up the conditions that allowed him to use the brick for a harmful purpose. Nobody would say be isn't using the brick, even if the waited result hasn't come to fruition.
The same principle applies to a store owner who sets up conditions that ultimately involve their current use of any product.
On the other hand, the person residing on the land has not established any conditions that would enable them to use everything that is not owned. I believe that establishing conditions is a vital aspect of establishing a more explicit connection between consciousness and other things.
Two individuals can share the same fundamental beliefs as you or me but arrive at significantly different conclusions. Our arguments to each other rely on appealing to what the other person already believes, and you have been doing so throughout our conversation. You have been asking how tool-ownership would determine morality in hypothetical scenarios to expose potential flaws in the framework.
However, when I appeal to your sensibilities, you interpret it as if I am asserting that we both adhere to the exact same ethical system or possess knowledge of some moral fact. You are doing the same, otherwise your arguments would be nonsensical. I could simply say, "Yes, everything is owned by everyone," or "Yes, the person does own the shopkeeper's hammer." In such cases, there would be no room for further argument. We have only two options: either agree with the conclusion you drew based on the moral framework I presented or disagree and explain how the conclusion is flawed within my moral framework.
I personally choose a particular sensibility and develop my moral framework from there.
When I first developed this way of thinking about ownership, it was not my intention to specifically align it with either a socialist or a capitalist economy. After pondering the concept for about 30 minutes and engaging in debates within my own mind, I do recognize that it does exhibit socialist tendencies, while capitalism can only exist in a weaker form.
However, I do not believe that my personal sensibilities toward socialism or a mixed economy are sufficient to convince me that this is the most morally sound approach to ownership. There are other factors and considerations at play that need to be taken into account.
If you intend to provide a critique of my extrapolation, the approach you are currently employing is inadequate. Simply pointing out potential contradictions in the extrapolation of tool-ownership does not disprove the connection between ownership of the body and tool-ownership. In order to effectively challenge my reasoning, you must do one of the following:
A1. Provide an explanation as to why extending consciousness to the body does not lead to the concept of tool-ownership
A2. Offer an alternative explanation of A1.
A3. Clarify the specific point at which the extension of ownership materializes within this framework.
The hardware store owner does not use the hammer in a physical manner. "Possession with intent to sell" is not physical use.
I chop down the forest to use the lumber. I plant the flag to claim the land as property to sell. If the hardware store owner legitimately owns the hammer, planting a flag is a legitimate claim on the continent.
This goes right back to the beginning: you use a sharp rock, I come around and say I used it first, then comes a third, etc. You came to the conclusion that your definition only works in trivial cases in thought experiments, in situations with any ambiguity everyone has to share. Every real world scenario is ambiguous.
The person who bought the shoes from me sells them, and that person sells them, and so on. After me, everyone bought the shoes legitimately.
Please reread this point, your response did not address it at all.
Same here, your response did not address the point.
A1. The body is the body, it is fundamentally integrated with the nervous system, and thus consciousness. Tools, while used by the body, are not fundamentally integrated. I could see a pragmatic definition of temporary ownership during the time one is using the tool, but I don't see how that extends to before or after the period of active use for a perpetual claim, or how morality enters the picture at all
A2./A3. I don't understand what you're requesting here.
The physical use refers to the setup of conditions, which he is using. If I simply possess it with intent, you are correct that it wouldn't be considered use. However, when I set up the conditions, it can be seen as using. Setting up the conditions itself is a physical action, and if someone else sets up the conditions for him, it becomes a transfer of ownership.
Then the lumber is put to use.
Why does the store owner need physical use of the hammer in scenario 1 but not in the flag scenario? The person placing the flag is not physically using the entire land.
If the rock is in a state without evident use, then sharing ownership would be the most ethical solution.
You're essentially saying that if someone uses something if is still ambigious if they use it in every scenario. If someone hurts another with the rock & someone sees, it's not ambigious. If someone cuts their name into a tool it's not unsure. The one who knows for sure has the only moral right to own it, they are morally justified to protect their things.
No, for the same reason that illegitimate ownership cannot be transferred. Governments even use this logic, just not that ownership materializes out of use.
When Ethri is setting up the condition to harm Kral with a brick, he is indeed using the brick. Everyone would acknowledge that he is using the brick. I applied this to a moral scenario to explicitly highlight the extension to consciousness.
The same principle applies to the store owner. When he is setting up the condition, he is using the hammer.
If another hammer were to materialize out of thin air in the store, I would argue that he has no ownership. Therefore, your conclusion would be correct, assuming he didn't set up the conditions to sell that hammer as well.
Tell me, do you believe that Elthri is using the hammer? If so, is it analogous enough to the hammer question? If your answer is yes, then the store owner is using the hammer.
In the case of claiming to sell everything not owned, he did not set up the conditions, so he still does not own it. Intent ≠ use.
I don't believe in a moral bedrock and think that people use their subjective moral opinions to form their beliefs.
I simply utilized a widely accepted opinion that I agree with, which is considered fundamental, and attempted to apply consistency.
Two individuals may share the same fundamental values but arrive at different conclusions.
Do people need to consult you every time they have a moral question? Because people will have different conclusions even if they fundamentally agree.
We both value ownership of our own bodies, yet we come to different solutions. Should everyone call you every time they need an answer that extends beyond (but still connected) self-ownership?
I appeal to self-ownership because I personally agree with it and it is a popular fundamental belief.
If you believe that points 5 and 6 have been addressed, I essentially said the same things before, but with more explanation or without explicitly stating the obvious conclusion. I simply think that my ethical framework makes the most sense compared to others, without claiming to have all the answers.
A1. My apologies for any confusion. When I refer to consciousness, I mean the thinking mind. The thinking mind is part of our consciousness, and we hold it accountable for immoral actions, which makes the body an extension of the thinking mind. Like how we hold a child & a adult to different moral groundings, apart from the thinking mind they both have the same "amount" of concious. How does the thinking mind's extension to the body not lead to the ownership of tools?
*You don't need to answer A2 or A3 since succesfully taking one means tool-ownership cannot be an conclusion in the first place.
A2. If there is an alternative explanation for why we own our own bodies, my theory becomes more of an option rather than a definitive conclusion.
A3. I argue that the point at which extension materializes is through use. If you can present a logical alternative that supports another point of materialization, then the equation of use = ownership becomes an option rather than a conclusion.
So the deciding factor is a storefront?
Which is it: personal use or commercial use?
As soon as both lay claim it comes down to Kral-said-Elthri-said, seems like your default judgement is to share anything with multiple claims.
Then all natural resources (like the landscape I sell pictures of, or the lake whose water we drink) are morally communal, and every hardware store hammer is an artifact made from dozen-times-stolen pairs of shoes.
The abandoned property I laid claim to did not appear out of thin air, it existed already and I merely set up the conditions to sell it.
You have not logically justified the jump from moral ownership of the self and body, to moral ownership of everything used by said body.
A1. The body has a sole claim, from within. The claim of a user to a tool is no more morally justified than a slaver's claim to another's body.
A2. Damaging the body directly hurts the consciousness. Legitimate responsibility, legitimate possession. Slavery is wrong because the whipper doesn't feel the whip.
By using it to sell, by setting up the conditions to sell the hammer.
Um, depends on how they are going to use it. If they are using it to make money then it's commercial use I guess. If for own pleasure or reasons then personal.
Yes, like with everything in the wild. It just depends on how confident a person is that they have a moral right to own something. Same thing to the government, they establish a court to determine confidence is a claim about ownership.
Technically no, but essentially yes. If I use a patch of land to put up a sign, then I am using thus own that patch. However, it doesn't mean I own all land that the patch is a part of - same thing with the water. I can use some water (unless I use it all like in the concrete example) but the rest people can use.
I know, I was solely explaining further to clarify what establishes ownership.
Simply put, we have a moral right to own our body. I want to know the reason. So, if we put a isolated scenario where someone punches another they are morally culpable. Usually meaning they should be restricted of their ownership of the body, like prison. We also say the same thing when someone uses a rock to hurt another person. So moral culpability seems to establish ownership in some way, & then I try to find a commonality. A commonality I find acceptable is the use of something; the use of the body & the use of the rock.
So you're saying that ownership of one's body is inherent? I disagree, however I think that believing as if it is the most moral way to act. My question is why it is inherent. If I am mistaken please clarify.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Hurting someone is bad, yes - that is one of the reasons I believe what I believe.
So responsibility = right to possesion?
If I don't feel harm of someone does that mean whatever I am doing is wrong? If the slaver got hurt too does that mean slavery is amoral?