The Concept of Entitlement is Flawed at its Roots
The idea of “deserving” / "entitlement" is based on a moralized perception of what “should” be. But standards of morality can vary in accordance to different systems of ethics. People do not inevitably or automatically subscribe to the same system of ethics. From an impartial standpoint, no one deserves anything, as it cannot be said from an unbiased standpoint what “should” exist, but only what “exists”
At the very least, people are predisposed to pursue something if they think the reward outweighs the risk. If a male wants to fuck a female, and:
Then there would be no reason why he wouldn’t attempt this method with the goal of having sex with a female
The Ultimate Premise for Action is about Preference, Perception of Viability and Risk vs Reward Judgement, not an imagined “Right to Freedom / Ownership”
Let’s say I have two options: A or B. If I prefer A from B, and I’m convinced that:
Then I would choose A over B
Even so, options can always be modified, and desire is theoretically endless, i.e., there is always potential for a higher preference. If a new option C arises, I might prefer C over A and B. If a new option D arises, I might prefer D over C, A, and B. If a new option E arises, I might prefer E over D, C, A, and B. The chain of higher preference continues ad infinitum...
Preference is about what you would rather have, and not necessarily what you want to have. If you were to ever end up in a situation where you have an infinite amount of options, you couldn’t possibly make certain of the option that you would prefer, even if the option exists, because at least some of the possible option would remain unidentified as long as there exists an infinite set of options. A preference can be decided, but only when the amount of available options is finite
Also preferences are not fundamentally universal, they are subjective. Person 1 can prefer A over B, while Person 2 can prefer B over A. There’s no way to ensure how or when all beings with choice will choose the same option. There's always the potential for preference to differ by chooser, and variances in preference can emerge unprecedentedly or randomly
The perception of viability is a hypothetical perception of “what can happen” and the “degree of potential for something to happen”. Viability doesn’t guarantee a specific outcome, it only guarantees the potential for a specific outcome. If a method is viable, then it has the potential produce a desired outcome upon being attempted. But if a viable method can be attempted at least once, then it is also possible for the viable method to fail at least one attempt. The most common tactic that people use to determine viability is through empirical observations. They observe what has happened before, and use their memory of those observations as a guide to estimate the degree of potential for something to happen in future
Risk vs Reward Judgement is based on a comparison between the probability of outcome for “what is preferred” and the probability of outcome for “what is un-preferred”. If the un-preferred outcome is perceived to have a higher probability of success, then the chooser may be inclined to choose not to attempt a viable method of obtaining what they prefer to have, based on this higher probability for the “un-preferred outcome”. If the preferred outcome is perceived to have a higher probability of success, then the chooser may be inclined to choose to attempt a viable method of obtaining what they prefer to have, based on this higher probability for the “preferred outcome”
TLDR: Every single being that has the ability to make choices, necessarily has to depend on three premises for action before they voluntarily attempt a certain action: Preference, Perception of Viability and Risk/Reward Judgement
The idea of “entitlement” / “deserve”, is an erroneous, arbitrary appropriation of the ability to choose, because it suggests there is necessarily an intention or objective in having the ability to make choices. It entirely rejects the theory that the ability of choice can derive from a purely accidental event, despite the lack of evidence to support this oppositional claim
P.S. There are philosophical implications in this post. I’m not really sure who might be interested. There are very few users on this site that are abstract thinkers, to show interest in philosophical discourse
@based_meme , @Caesercel , @Buried Alive 2.0 , @Mecoja , @Logic55
The idea of “deserving” / "entitlement" is based on a moralized perception of what “should” be. But standards of morality can vary in accordance to different systems of ethics. People do not inevitably or automatically subscribe to the same system of ethics. From an impartial standpoint, no one deserves anything, as it cannot be said from an unbiased standpoint what “should” exist, but only what “exists”
At the very least, people are predisposed to pursue something if they think the reward outweighs the risk. If a male wants to fuck a female, and:
(1) He believes he’s found a viable method to reach the experience of fucking a female
(2) The method is perceived to be overall higher in reward than risk
Then there would be no reason why he wouldn’t attempt this method with the goal of having sex with a female
The Ultimate Premise for Action is about Preference, Perception of Viability and Risk vs Reward Judgement, not an imagined “Right to Freedom / Ownership”
Let’s say I have two options: A or B. If I prefer A from B, and I’m convinced that:
A is viable, i.e. it is possible to have A
The risk of pursuing option A is outweighed by the reward of pursuing option A
Then I would choose A over B
Even so, options can always be modified, and desire is theoretically endless, i.e., there is always potential for a higher preference. If a new option C arises, I might prefer C over A and B. If a new option D arises, I might prefer D over C, A, and B. If a new option E arises, I might prefer E over D, C, A, and B. The chain of higher preference continues ad infinitum...
Preference is about what you would rather have, and not necessarily what you want to have. If you were to ever end up in a situation where you have an infinite amount of options, you couldn’t possibly make certain of the option that you would prefer, even if the option exists, because at least some of the possible option would remain unidentified as long as there exists an infinite set of options. A preference can be decided, but only when the amount of available options is finite
Also preferences are not fundamentally universal, they are subjective. Person 1 can prefer A over B, while Person 2 can prefer B over A. There’s no way to ensure how or when all beings with choice will choose the same option. There's always the potential for preference to differ by chooser, and variances in preference can emerge unprecedentedly or randomly
The perception of viability is a hypothetical perception of “what can happen” and the “degree of potential for something to happen”. Viability doesn’t guarantee a specific outcome, it only guarantees the potential for a specific outcome. If a method is viable, then it has the potential produce a desired outcome upon being attempted. But if a viable method can be attempted at least once, then it is also possible for the viable method to fail at least one attempt. The most common tactic that people use to determine viability is through empirical observations. They observe what has happened before, and use their memory of those observations as a guide to estimate the degree of potential for something to happen in future
Risk vs Reward Judgement is based on a comparison between the probability of outcome for “what is preferred” and the probability of outcome for “what is un-preferred”. If the un-preferred outcome is perceived to have a higher probability of success, then the chooser may be inclined to choose not to attempt a viable method of obtaining what they prefer to have, based on this higher probability for the “un-preferred outcome”. If the preferred outcome is perceived to have a higher probability of success, then the chooser may be inclined to choose to attempt a viable method of obtaining what they prefer to have, based on this higher probability for the “preferred outcome”
TLDR: Every single being that has the ability to make choices, necessarily has to depend on three premises for action before they voluntarily attempt a certain action: Preference, Perception of Viability and Risk/Reward Judgement
The idea of “entitlement” / “deserve”, is an erroneous, arbitrary appropriation of the ability to choose, because it suggests there is necessarily an intention or objective in having the ability to make choices. It entirely rejects the theory that the ability of choice can derive from a purely accidental event, despite the lack of evidence to support this oppositional claim
P.S. There are philosophical implications in this post. I’m not really sure who might be interested. There are very few users on this site that are abstract thinkers, to show interest in philosophical discourse
@based_meme , @Caesercel , @Buried Alive 2.0 , @Mecoja , @Logic55
Last edited:
