Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- claim [2024/02/13 10:52] – ultracomfy
+++ claim [2025/07/06 10:24] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:Claim~~
 <WRAP column right 18%>
-{{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
+{{page>Templates:Systems}}
 </WRAP>
 A <fs xx-large>Claim</fs> is a person's [[Moral Right|moral right]] to use, consume or otherwise possess a thing. While there are many types of claims (financial, legal, etc.), the only one relevant to //me// and how I live //my// life is the moral one. A claim can be established by three things: Need, emotional desire and fairness. The first two concepts describe the two kinds of motivations that can lead a person to want a thing, [[Intrinsic value]] and [[Extrinsic value]], while the third one is an auxiliary dictated by a moral system.
-{{page>Templates:Systems}}
+{{page>Templates:Systemsbox}}
 ====== Types of Claims ======
@@ Line 21: / Line 22: @@
 ===== Ownership =====
+//See the main page on [[Heinz Dilemma]].//
 {{page>Templates:Factuality}}
@@ Line 27: / Line 28: @@
 ===== Physical Restrictions =====
-Real world restrictions can influence our needs and desires, which in turn changes the strength of a claim. I live in a real world where I am restricted by laws and law enforcement in a way that requires me to adapt my perception and my emotional desire for things in accordance. For example, money is a rare resource that's hard to come buy for most, which means I need to acknowledge that, for most people, they have a very strong claim on the money they somehow //did// get (by going to work((Though this creates in interesting conundrum - what if the money was stolen? Here we see that ownership and fairness alone aren't concepts functioning on their own. Would it be moral to steal money from a person who themselves stole that money? While at first one may go "yes", prolonged analysis yields that there //are// in fact plenty of scenarios in which stealing it //isn't// the moral thing to do, all of which have one thing in common: Need. Emotional Desire and Fairness may not be compelling arguments to try to establish that stealing stolen goods is bad (because the situation itself is already morally flawed), but if the person has a strong //need claim// on the money then that's a valid claim, even if they had to steal that money themselves - which in turn means, again, that stealing it from //them// is something very hard to justify.)), for example). While //I// may not have signed up to live in a world where money dictates the movement of goods, other people live in that world and have emotions according to it. No matter how much //I// value money as a whole, the claim of another honest, hardworking person on //their// money is probably much stronger than mine, making stealing it immoral. In contrast, a grocery store chain that generates billions in profit each year, where resources are virtually unlimited, damage effectively nonexistent and reacquisition already secured years into advance((Kick and scream, capitalists! I am specifically talking about billions companies, the ones where resources really //are// virtually infinite. "But what if everyone did it?" - Then //eventually// that company would no longer be profiteering 9 digit figures, would not have virtually infinite resources anymore, damage would be considerable and reacquisition hard, ie. it would be a self-correcting cycle because at that point it would start to become immoral to steal.)), creates what's best described as a [[PIMO]]: Physically In, Mentally Out. While law enforcement forces me to acquire whatever objects I desire with //money// (even if I have a physical need, not just emotional desire!), I will philosophically disagree with that arrangement and be [[Statistical inevitability|very inclined to circumvent]] whatever enforcement measures the law or, in this case, the grocery store chain have implemented. This is why [[Statistical Inevitability#Theft|store theft is a mass phenomenon]], too. This is how it comes to be that I then also respect smaller stores, like family businesses, where resources //are// limited, where damage //is// severe and reacquisition //is// very hard.
+Real world restrictions can influence our needs and desires, which in turn changes the strength of a claim. I live in a real world where I am restricted by laws and law enforcement in a way that requires me to adapt my perception and my emotional desire for things in accordance. For example, money is a rare resource that's hard to come by for most, which means I need to acknowledge that, for most people, they have a very strong claim on the money they somehow //did// get (by going to work((Though this creates in interesting conundrum - what if the money was stolen? Here we see that ownership and fairness alone aren't concepts functioning on their own. Would it be moral to steal money from a person who themselves stole that money? While at first one may go "yes", prolonged analysis yields that there //are// in fact plenty of scenarios in which stealing it //isn't// the moral thing to do, all of which have one thing in common: Need. Emotional Desire and Fairness may not be compelling arguments to try to establish that stealing stolen goods is bad (because the situation itself is already morally flawed), but if the person has a strong //need claim// on the money then that's a valid claim, even if they had to steal that money themselves - which in turn means, again, that stealing it from //them// is something very hard to justify.)), for example). While //I// may not have signed up to live in a world where money dictates the movement of goods, other people live in that world and have emotions according to it. No matter how much //I// value money as a whole, the claim of another honest, hardworking person on //their// money is probably much stronger than mine, making stealing it immoral. In contrast, a grocery store chain that generates billions in profit each year, where resources are virtually unlimited, damage effectively nonexistent and reacquisition already secured years into advance((Kick and scream, capitalists! I am specifically talking about billions companies, the ones where resources really //are// virtually infinite. "But what if everyone did it?" - Then //eventually// that company would no longer be profiteering 9 digit figures, would not have virtually infinite resources anymore, damage would be considerable and reacquisition hard, ie. it would be a self-correcting cycle because at that point it would start to become immoral to steal.)), creates what's best described as a [[PIMO]]: Physically In, Mentally Out. While law enforcement forces me to acquire whatever objects I desire with //money// (even if I have a physical need, not just emotional desire!), I will philosophically disagree with that arrangement and be [[Statistical inevitability|very inclined to circumvent]] whatever enforcement measures the law or, in this case, the grocery store chain have implemented. This is why [[Statistical Inevitability#Theft|store theft is a mass phenomenon]], too. This is how it comes to be that I then also respect smaller stores, like family businesses, where resources //are// limited, where damage //is// severe and reacquisition //is// very hard.
 ====== Renouncing a Claim ======
-At any point in time, a person can [[consent]] to forfeit their claim on a thing. Important: The consent part - every affected party must be aware of and consenting to such a [[Moral Contract]]. Renouncing a claim, for example when gifting a relative money, may or may not come with conditions or restrictions (for example: "I gift you 500 bucks, but I want you to invest it into your college tuition"). At this point the gifting person is renouncing their claim on the money, but only on the condition that the beneficiary use it for their tuition payments. Using it for something else would break the moral contract and therefore be //immoral// (unless a priority claim can be substantiated that justifies using the money for something else - an immediate need, for example).
+//See the main page on [[Moral Contract]].//
+At any point in time, a person can [[consent]] to forfeit, fully or partially, their claim on a thing. Important: The consent part - every affected party must be aware of and consenting to such a [[Moral Contract]]. Renouncing a claim, for example when gifting a relative money, may or may not come with conditions or restrictions (for example: "I gift you 500 bucks, but I want you to invest it into your college tuition"). At this point the gifting person is renouncing their claim on the money, but only on the condition that the beneficiary use it for their tuition payments. Using it for something else would break the moral contract and therefore be //immoral// (unless a priority claim can be substantiated that justifies using the money for something else - an immediate need, for example).
 Many of these moral contracts involve some implicit social expectations. The person forfeiting a claim is often thought of not //completely// giving up that claim. There is always a slight expectation, though not always explicitly stated, that they can recall the moral contract. People may view this more or less "wrong" depending on the circumstances, but the point is that these moral contracts agreed upon between people are often more involved than what is explicitly communicated, founded on an underlying foundation of morals most people assume to be in common agreement with and not necessary to state explicitly. For example, taking back a gift because they found out that they ended up needing it ("it", for example money) more. While the beneficiary may feel bad about it, they will, at least to a degree, usually respect the claim the gifting person has on that money.