This guy seems aight

1. By using it to sell, by setting up the conditions to sell the hammer.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. I know, I was solely explaining further to clarify what establishes ownership.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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?

Everything you said is agreeable, everything you said I completely agree with. Assuming the house scenario has laws to protect ownership, correct.

I am not saying this thought of moral ownership is viable through wilderness most of the time. Merely what is moral or immoral in respect to ownership.

Thank you for the recommendations. I agree with everything you said, except for the use of something which is simply restating what Locke has already said.

As I understand it, Locke establishes ownership not by extrapolating from the ownership of the body, but by assuming that individuals own their own bodies and using that as a premise for why they also own other things. While ethical systems may have some overlapping agreements, I believe there are enough differences between my perspective and Locke's that it is not simply a restatement of his ideas. I apologize if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented his views.

I don't understand why people assume that I am suggesting this as a factual means of establishing ownership. I am simply stating what creates a situation where individuals should have the moral right to own something.

I will definitely read the recommendations you've provided, as my previous thoughts on ownership were just the result of casual reflection over a few days. I'm certain I will look into them.

Moral ownership isn't about how other's can recognize their claim to the rock, merely that they have the moral right to posses or keep something.

I never said the possesion itself translates to ownership. I have been pretty explicit that the first use is what determines ownership. *Sorry, I thought I was responding to someone else.

If you actually believe that, what about someone who puts their name on a axe they use? It no longer becomes a he/she says, even in a societless society.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Do you really believe that every rock is intentionally shaped in the exact same way? I would argue that there is no ambiguity unless Kral and Elthri have identical-looking rocks, and Elthri lost their rock while Kral left their rock somewhere else. Can you identify how hard ambiguity materializes?

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.

4. No, for the same reason that illegitimate ownership cannot be transferred. Governments even use this logic, just not that ownership materializes out of use.

5. 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.

6. No, I don't make the decision.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, the point of ownership is that you gain the right to own something. The person who left the item still owns the rock.

the fourth one. I like flatter handles & the head looks like it works the best.

The person who uses it as a tool first.