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.
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?