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.
Two people are fighting over the rock, who owns it?
The person who uses it as a tool first.
What if they use it, and leave it on the ground for a minute while they go do something, and come back to find another had grabbed it?
Well, the point of ownership is that you gain the right to own something. The person who left the item still owns the rock.
While the one who left the rock and the one who found the rock are arguing, a third comes along and claims it themselves, saying they used the rock first last week. Then a fourth notices the commotion, figures if everyone wants the rock so bad it must be worth having, claims they used the rock before the other 3 a month ago; it's a lie, but there's no way to prove it. Who holds an enforceable claim to the rock, and by what authority?
Alternatively, I walk into the hardware store, pick up a brand new never-been-used hammer. I use it to drive a nail into the wall, I'm now the first person to use the hammer as a tool, and thus the owner, and the store has no right to charge me for the hammer. I then go down to the car dealership, test drive a new car, and claim ownership by the same rights. I take my car to a new subdivision, and squat overnight in a brand new constructed home, using it as a tool to protect me from the elements.
I am assuming the third party did actually use the rock since you differentiated the third & fourth person.
The third person would still holds the right to actually keep the rock, it's just unknown to all parties. Which means that none hold authority over the rock, ownership must be shared. In the same way where two people were born in the same body but cannot tell who was concious first. It's just there is four beings in this example, and they both have a moral right to share the body.
I would argue that the hammer is being currently used as something to sell. For example, if someone never uses their body to do something doesn't mean they don't own their body. However, the state of the body being a vessel necessarily means that someone, who doesn't use to do something with their body, still uses body.
Just because inaction exists doesn't mean it cannot be used. For example, Kral can carve a message onto a tree to give love advice. He still uses the part of the tree as a means to give out a message, same way the store owner uses the hammer as a means to get money. Same goes for the car dealership & home.
Idk why you used three thought experiments with the same variables of tool-ownership, unless I miss something in which case sorry.
Your definition of "tool use" is so vague I'm not sure what, ironically, its use is. In the rock example, once things get complicated or you start viewing the situation from a non-omniscient perspective, the concept goes out the window and they have to share. Practical situations are like this.
If you follow custody of objects with intent to sell backwards through their owners, eventually someone just called dibs on natural resources and beat up anyone who disagreed. That hammer was once a tree and ores, squabbled over like the rock in the earlier example. Shouldn't it be shared then? If everyone's using a lake to drink from, how can one person bottle it and sell it? Shouldn't it be shared like the rock?
If I climb a mountain and take pictures of the landscape to print into postcards, do I own the land? Someone developing the land destroys the view, which I was using to get money. Therefore, since I was using it it's mine.
It just seems like this tool-use perspective is either so vague as to not really solve anything (possession=tool use), or immediately discarded as soon as it's applied to a situation where it could make a distinction (the initial rock).
The most explicit definition I can think of is: "when something is forced upon by someone's will." Selling can be applicable since the will would be to put it up to be sold.
Well, all of ownership-deciding methodology would fall under a non-omniscient view unless there are records of some kind. Our government operates off a different mythology yet if they do not keep records they are unable to actually establish who owns something. Yet ownership under government is still practical in general. Even in a vacumm using this system can be used for personal decision making, even if others are dishonest.
I actually thought about this beforehand, first nobody can own a drink or food since it's use is the end of their existence. Unless they use drinks or food in a unorthodox way or sell it. If people drink water that water is theirs, however they can't own the rest of the lake since they haven't used the rest of the water.
The picture point I have never considered, so my answer might change in the future. Hopefully we agree that someone who punches another person in a vacumm is immoral. Same thing with the rock. People are blamed for their action that their concious, their will, causes. There's an extension to their concious identity. However, if someone shoots a gun in the air & hits someone there is a sense a lesser moral culpability. It's kinda present in law too, where the intentional & the unintentional (or more apt negligence) are different in moral culpability. Someone being underaged & an adult are treated different for moral culpability.
You use a camera, and you use the land as a picture. One has a obvious, more explicit, extension while the other one not so much. However if you find a cave and you use it there is a more explicit extension, the land is theirs. I think a line of explicit extension, however vague, that exists enough to differentiate when someone has the right to own something. Hope that makes sense.
I don't think there is a definition that establishes who has the moral right to own something that isn't vague. Some think it's when you find something, finders keepers. What if two people find the same thing at the same time? What if a store owner finds a product at the same time as a stranger (somehow.) What if someone find a land first? A river first? If someone goes up a montain & on the other side there is land, he found that land. Do they own the land?
It's not like people don't prescribe to this, if people find a dollar on the street they keep it. No questions if it's immoral to keep the dollar even though it's likely it was owned by someone else, they found it. Which can be questioned even further.
Finally, I don't understand the your hammer question. If someone was hired to make the hammer, they can make the hammer but still own it. Since they are the rightful owner they can transfer ownership; it doesn't have to be shared. If multiple people were hired to make one hammer then they would all, correct, share the hammer's ownership - while possibly allowing the ownership to tranfer due to all of them being hired.
Your concept sounds a lot like finders keepers, at its core. All this means is whoever gets to a resource first claims it. Might makes right, the first person to chop down all the trees robs the rest of the world of their shade
Your development on the hammer idea is intriguing. By that logic, it's not the possession of a tool that gives ownership, but rather the labor that transforms the raw materials into something of greater value. Of course, the raw natural materials are only obtained for transformation by hoarding away from shared ownership. Perhaps the only logical thing anyone owns is, as you said, the extension of their will: their labor.
Morally, once you peel away the layers of transference all land and raw materials are logically shared by all, with the only actual ownership being over the personal extension of will, the tool use not the tool itself, which by consent of those who share the materials, transforms those materials into valuable forms. Certainly, something to consider.
I disagree that my tool-ownership & finders keepers thought process would be the same in it's core. Under finders keepers, I think, is a more intuitive thought cliche rather than a reasoned through ethical lens. For example, I don't think someone who believes in finders keepers can reason out that two people who find a thing at once ought to share the thing.
The tool-ownership decides who morally has the right to posses something, not who gains the upperhand in actually getting something.
If the conclusion of finders keepers is that "might makes right," it is not only different in it's outcomes or core but the fundamental idea that people can even have the moral right to own things is non-existent. Might makes right cannot coincide with the idea of ownership, since the moral right to own something cannot be a right, since taking something someone owned through might that they owned - through might - is morally right, or at least, neutral. Essentially: the right to own things cannot exist because you never had the right in the first place. At worse it's morally good to rip things away from people if taken literally.
Also, the hammer is not owned through labor but rather the use of it being something to sell to the store owner. You're right that the the mere fact it's being possessed does not make them have the moral right to have ownership, but it isn't the labor put into make the thing that makes it owned either. If I were to prescribe to that I would need justification of how someone can put labor into making their own body, since that's what tool-ownership is based on. If labor includes upkeep, what about people who are concious but cannot move? They don't maintain themselves.
That last paragraph is completely agreeable, practically. In the start of humanity tool-ownership cannot be determined very well except for a small portion of things that an individual can concretly use (like a small hut). Land? How can one individual prove that they stepped, therefore own, on a piece of land. Making it shared. However, where tribes are formed there is a more concrete extension of communal use of land, while some sections people have full ownership of their homes or huts. Which makes it evident that they communally own that land to others who have not consent of ownership. The ownership becomes evident, the "people don't know therefore people share," isn't a problem anymore.
That's still finders keepers. Someone got to a resource first and claimed it (or got to a resource later and wrenched it from whoever claimed it before them). All the use and records and trade and sales and legal distinctions made after that point rest, fundamentally, on the bedrock of "someone years ago called dibs and beat up anyone who challenged them". Every country has been claimed and colonized and fought over, who is the moral owner?
It just seems like your definition of tool use is extremely arbitrary and subjective, as is what point you decide an initial claim is valid. Why are food and water exceptions? Does that mean it's immoral to sell food? What if instead of bottling the water for consumption, I decide to use it all up for concrete, or cleaning chemicals, or pump it into swimming pools? What if I want to use it to store the toxic runoff from my factory? What happens any time two people lay claim to the same resource? They share? What if they want to use it for mutually exclusive purposes? Who has the moral claim?
You either come to the moral conclusion that whoever can start "using" the most resources the fastest gets to own everything, or that no one can own anything material because everything ultimately belongs to everyone. You can't just arbitrarily decide that the hardware store owner has claim to the hammer, even if he purchased it by consent of the manufacturer. Where did the manufacturer get the raw materials? Who laid claim to the mines and the forest where the wood and ore originated? Who was using that land before them? And before them? If I steal your shoes and sell them, I used them by your definition. Do the shoes now morally belong to my customer? If they're sold a dozen more times, each seller purchased them fairly and used them as a "tool" to make money.
That's what I mean when I say your concept is "might makes right" at it's core. Even if everything is done fairly and morally after a point, before that point it relies on someone claiming something by force.
That is an inherent problem of all ideas of who has ownership. It's not about who gets to own something but who has the right to own something. Your answer is just who: "ever owned it first under tool-ownership - unless x, y, or z."
It's like conflating the idea that people's right to own their of the body & who gets to essentially "own" those people's body. Do you then think that slavery is just something that someone gets to call dibs on just because they got enough force to do so? (Hopefully), no, slavery is still immoral regardless if their ownership of the body is essentially overruned.
For your concrete example I would say you would have the moral right to own that concrete, since you used it. Or any of the other examples. The toxic run-off implies immoral use of your ownership which superseds your ownership, same way where if you use your body for immoral reasons you get restrained (prison.) Any claim would need to be share unless one has enough evidence they have a moral right to own something, which becomes more easily justifiable as society progresses.
Correct, with exceptions. Why does it belong to everyone? Because anything everything is unprovengly nobodies? That I will concede is not true, if one person makes a hut & uses it that cannot happen shared since the person who owns it already knows who is the original owner. Nobody can claim it, since it's evident by the owner. If a third party comes in to try to judge who is the owner, and they can't tell who owns the thing, the actual owner gets to defend what he owns as he is the moral owner of that thing.
I think you might be confused. I have not suggested an answer to ownership. I am merely following your answer to its logical conclusion. If you have a problem with the points I've raised, you have a problem with your own premise.
You're defining moral ownership as X, but then making exceptions when X is immoral. It's like defining a dog as "a quadruped with fur, except for furry quadrupeds which aren't dogs". You can't include dogs in your definition of a dog, and you can't include morality in your definition of moral ownership.
Your definition doesn't actually achieve anything. It's entirely subjective and based on consensus, but consensus of who? You talk about "actual" owner and "moral" owner, as if this matters outside a thought experiment. If it can't be applied, and no one can ever really know for sure, what does it matter?
You do realize you're asking me: can people never use anything in a way where it's evident they used something (meaning everyone shares) - or everything clear who owns what (one person owns all if not most of everthing)? You had made a dichotomy where the assumption is that it's not possible some parts of our physical world can be owned by multiple people while other things only owned by one. It also assumes that one person can somehow use most resources in the world. That is obviously impossible. Maybe in interconnected group like societies, but not an individual. However societies necessarily share ownership to some degree.
I never said that was a definition, that was an answer to your question about who has the moral right to own something. If one country colonizes the other, assuming that the colonized were first to use the land, the colonized own the land. However, if the colonizers successfully colonize they are wearing the skin of a dead person - they don't own the skin since it was a illigimate overtake of ownership. If another country tries to take ownership of the land it isn't an immoral action since it was never legitimate. If they succeed they own the land. However, just because the country owns the land, how the land is used makes the ownership come to question. I would argue that in a feudal country the king takes ownership, and as you probably know, the king usually uses that ownership in a immoral way. Making their ownership illegitimate. Essentially: "whoever owns the thing under tool-ownership - except x, y, z." I think I explained it in the second or third paragraph of how it's applicable to human bodies in my last response.
Your last paragraph I've already responded to in my first paragraph, though indirectly.
I will repeat: Your definition of "moral ownership" boils down to "owning something morally". You rely on an existing (and in every case so far, implicit and subjective) definition of morality. When there are conflicts between your definition and your subjective morality, you defer to subjective morality. What's the point of the definition then?
I will repeat: What is the point of your definition?
What is the point of musing about tool use?
What problem does it solve?
What solution does it offer that isn't just your subjective moral opinion covered in obfuscating layers of philosophy?
Please answer each of these questions, directly, specifically, in order. Unless you do so there is no benefit to the conversation
Sorry if I seem weasly, I thought I was actually engaging.
Direct Answer: The point of my definition is to find the most moral way to define ownership.
Clarification: I acknowledge there are different philosophies that disagree with my ethical framework. However, I used what most people agree with: the right to have ownership over one's own body. Then I extrapolated from that to the definition of ownership. Unless you disagree people don't have ownership over their own body, then I think we share a value that allows you to agree with the tool-ownership thought. That's why I have been using body metaphors.
Direct Answer: It solves some problems, like how the most ethical conclusion is to share unknown ownership between people. I am sure there are other examples like that.
Direct Answer: My philosophy is my subjective morality, I never said anything that would contradict that. At least not on purpose.
Clarification: Even though I do believe my morality is subjective I can recognize the popular moral opinions of the general person. That's why I appeal to popular opinion & something that's seemingly fundamental, like the ownership of one's own body.
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?