A debate on entitlement

[cowsmanaut]

just for fun.. let me propose a situation.. and let's see what you think.

You have a beggar, and you pass him every day starting from monday.. eventually by friday you give him a coin and for that he thanks you sincerely. However, if you were to restart that week and give him a coin on every day except friday.. he will likley look at you askance and perhaps even scorn you for not rewarding him with a coin.

now, the question is, is he entitled to his feelings on the subject? After all, could it perhaps be argued you have created a dependency here? Perhaps he now plans his day around that coin.

After all we have a variety of rules here that say do not feed the animals. The ducks tend to not go south for the winter and depend on human handouts all winter which may or may not come. Endangering them and perhaps even leading to some deaths among the duck population. If you feed a bear, it demands more, and can be very insisting about the food especially if it's had sweet things in the past. I've had squirrels climb my leg to go in my pockets for food... but those are animals.. and do not understand.

This is a beggar.. who knows he is not entitled to our money.. it is our generosity which gives him that or does not... and when generosity turns to obligation it can never return for it will forever be tainted by that notion.

this situation can be applied to a number of scenarios though.. is there a case where the "beggar" is in their right to expect their "coin"? Can you think of one? is it time dependent? if it was done for a year instead of a week? or does it simply boil down to a man happy with one coin but dissapointed with 4? is it a case of greed? or just missconception?

I've been thinking about this situational example for a few months now.. it has it's two sides to the argument.. I'd be interested to hear some views

[zoom]

well, I think it boils down to habits and getting used to things in general. We did not have war over here for quite some time(which is good) and people I daresay take that for granted. What else could they do about it when they have nothing to compare it to?
furthermore the mental horizon gets dim if it is confined too much for too long. i.e if you only play cards all day long and watch TV you will not have the same scope as someone with a more varied social etc activit¥.
Throw in some persisting memories or tactics to survive or keep what is sacred to you and you get subborn people that can
not change very much. Often people do change, however when a very severe cut in their lives takes place (illness, death some enlightenment, reincarnation in dmprobably too Well just my 2pence!

[Duckman]

Of course all humans and animals begin to except somethin' if they always get it as soon as they forget what's it all about. After all, we do the same thing too: we are wealthly enough to spend time at these forums, usually not thinking the possiblity that a war or an anarchy could make us so busy that we will not be able to do that.

But in the beggar case you gave the beggar's got to be quite unwise if he starts to except the coin so soon. With birds it is true that if you start to feed them you should do that the rest of the winter, but with beggars you can except some thinking and you do not have to repeat the same thing even if you have made it before, but it would still be good thing to warn the beggar beforehand that he/she will have to do without a coin. Of course the thing is different if you have PROMISED to pay him/her everyday, it would be very rude and dirty if you were to stop the aid without warning nor a good reason if you have promised otherwise.

[Trego]

now, the question is, is he entitled to his feelings on the subject? After all, could it perhaps be argued you have created a dependency here? Perhaps he now plans his day around that coin.

I say yes, he is 'entitled' to his feelings, after a week of receiving a coin the beggar I would assume the beggar look down on you for not giving it the next day. But if the beggar acts on these feelings, ie openly asks about the coin, then they do not deserve a return of there coins.

I could see the intrinsic value of the coin to both parties diminish over time, the person giving, finds themselves obligated to give the coin each day, it becomes a job, a chore, (they start to think of ways not to give the coin, they start avoiding that corner etc); and the person receiving the coin will come to expect the coin (beginning to plan there day around it, yes, esp' if it is a large sum or amounts up to a need or desire, food/drink etc), they will value the 'coin' more than the person giving it.

Another question could be: will the beggar value the act of giving more, if it came from a child, than if the same coin was given from an adult or upper class citizen?

It makes me think about the saying: "Beggars can't be choosers"

[Paul Stevens]

who knows he is not entitled to our money

An axiom I might argue against. We may
have to pin down the definitions of
several words in that phrase.

[ian_scho]

Having an expectation will lead to disappointment.
Having no food aid sent to Africa will lead to (more) death.
Still don't know the answer to this one, I'm afraid.

[cowsmanaut]

Well he should know that generosity does not equate to entitlement.. because generosity is a subject of choice, where as entitlement goes with obligation which offers no choice.. it's simply a matter of the beggars aknowledgement of that reality... rather than allowing greed or desire to cloud their interpretation of how things work

I think scenario also applies to failed marriages. One in the marriage assuming they are entitled to some sort of undying love without any need for a return display of the same. I mean it's not exactly the same... it's more or less the flip side of the coin (forgive the pun). For that one person made certain efforts through the courting and the start of the marriage. It is this that made things enjoyable and then eventually that person stops doing that... and wonders why the other becomes upset. This often leads to arguments over little things that are sometimes unrelated and sometimes about the things they desired the person would do again.. where upon it can be seen as obligation and it's meaning has changed.

So in this example the "coin giver" is the one at fault. However the key reason for that is because that person is getting something in return for their "coin" and then wishes to keep having that after they stop giving the coin. Ie a smile and "thank you" from the beggar.

As a side note, In the case of my own marriage I simply remind myself of things I apreciate about my wife. It takes no effort at all really, and the reward I get from thinking about it is a warm fuzzy feeling that makes me want to do something nice and to remind her in turn that I love her. It's not an obligation because she has never expected it..it's my choice. So that's my way..

The point though is that If you change the people involved and the object, it can change our interpretation of it.. simply because other elements are expected, or likely in this new situation. which makes me wonder how many other situations can be derived from this example and how they differ..

if the beggar is not entitled to the coin, is the spouse also not entitled to the loving efforts of their "other half"?

[Paul Stevens]

You find some sort of parallel between:
a) begger/philanthropist
b) wife/husband
? ?

[cowsmanaut]

you're bad.. and notice how he aligns the collumns You can't say it's not on purpose either.. you're a programmer.. everything is as intended

Seriously though, the only similar lines are between giving and receiving, and choice vs obligation in those two examples. The point was that the difference of *who* is involved changes how the "rules" are seen.

However, humans are humans are humans. Our interactions are defined by reward vs consequence. What we see as reward is unique to us and the situation... since how we see things are based on what we have learned through the society we were raised in and the morals of those we interact with spiced with a few of our other experiences. So, one could draw a variety of similarities between any two people no matter their life path, sex, origin, etc.

I myself went from homeless to my current happy and stable life. The only thing that differed between my state as a homeless person and my position today was a few simple choices. ie, I made better ones to get my butt off the street. but I digress..

what I'm curious about is how people individually see the above situation and how the situation can be altered to justify it one way or the other.

is it right to expect something simply because it has been given a number of times before? Does the act of giving something a number of times obligate you to giving it for as long as you live?.. and if so..how many times before it becomes an obligation? does the status/type of the "gift" change the rules? Love, food, money, etc? Do the parties invloved change that as well? and if so why?

[Paul Stevens]

Wow.....How about yes, no, N/A, yes(and skip one '?'), yes,
because people are different!

There.....does that help? It is my opinion given
what I think you mean by your questions.
Of course the begger has no right to expect
you to come by every day with a coin. But it
is certainly right to expect it to happen.
And I mean both of those things, honestly.
It is just that the words, though spelled the
same, have slightly different meanings.
If I toss a coin and it comes up heads
a thousand times in succession, it is right
to expect that it has a head on both sides.
And I have a right to be surprised if it
comes up tails.

But..but..but..but.......so many of your words
are ill-defined. "Is it right?". What does that
mean? Morally? Legally? Logically? Whose
morals? What legal system? With what probabilty?

There are philosophers ( I hope they are not getting
paid too much ) who argue about whether it is
right to expect the sun to come up tomorrow.
Some say that only experiments that disprove
a theory are relavant and, since nobody has
shown that the sun won't come up, then we know
nothing. Some say that finding a blue gem
helps to prove that all crows are black.

My point is that honest (perhaps wierd)
people disagree on straight-forward topics.
So what are we to do with words such as
"right", "obligation", "rules", and "love".
And implied words like "expectation" and
"promise".

I don't think there is much hope of having
a fruitful discussion except in very particular
cases about which we can discover all the
details.

Why am I doing this????? Tell me to shut
up. Please! And, by the way, I did indeed
line up those colums. Twice, before I got
it right.

[Gambit37]

I'm inclined to agree with Paul.

[Jan]

I'm inclined to agree with Paul.

Yeah, me too. Firstly because I think he's right (not in a philosophical but in a common sense). Secondly because he seems to be a very very experienced man - see his note on "a) begger/philanthropist, b) wife/husband parallels". And thirdly because of the way he alligns the collumns - I don't have to move my eyes from left to right and so they don't get tired. (hey, this was not a sarcasm, I'm being serious)

[zoom]

do not feel bad .It is not your fault cows. people are different and people do change.You me everyone, some more some more sublte.
Situations, there can be bad ones. If you know what you do (not always but most of the time) is right then continue doing just that. Doubts are natural and if there is some nagging feeling try to get to the core of that and adjust your actions ..
Thing is, you can change others hardly at all and it is hard to change oneself.

[Gambit37]

@Jan: I was being flippant. Paul's post raised far too many questions that can simply be agreed with and I fear that I couldn't possibly de-construct it in any intelligent way. The man is far more insightful than I will ever be and I wouldn't know where to start!

[PaulH]

Isn't this basic conditioning ie Pavlov's dogs? Ring bell, expect food - walk past, expect money. Of course he well feel a level of expectation and then disappointment!

How he deals with it is then how humans are conditioned elsewhere - we are not dogs in that sense. We will not follow that person slobbering for the next half hour until it gets what it wants or is relegated to the kennel.

[Jan]

@Jan: I was being flippant.

Yeah, me too. Or does my answer and the three points imply anything else? If you find anything intelectually sound in my answer above, please, let me know, because I didn't find anything. I've searched all my mind and found nothing.

Actually, this debate is probably too philosophical, or just too clever for me - or I'm just too silly for these big things like The Meaning Of Life, etc.

[Gambit37]

Heh he, I knew you were being flippant too, but I did have an element of doubt for a moment and wanted to clarify...

One could argue that it's the "meaning of life" conversations that are silly (since we can never answer that question) and it's those who don't care about such things who lead the most fulfilling lives. The only meaning to life that I can see is "Find your own purpose and live it."

[Jan]

Once, for a very short moment, I thought I'd found The Meaning Of Life... everything sort of cleared, and was very bright and I thought I was beginning to understand... but it was just a glimpse... and then I found it was actually the bottom of an empty beer glass.

It was at this moment when I decided not to search for The Meaning Of Life. And I won't talk about it anymore, because I don't want to derail this conversation. I'll just shut up and watch the others.

[beowuuf]

In terms of 'social contracts', entitlement implies that the person has done something and now expects that society in general, or a representative of society in specific, will give them something back.

We all work for a living, or try to do something meaningful in terms of education, with the expectation that we will contribute to society in physical, practical, mental or emotional ways to ensure that we are entitled to the protections and resource sharing that society is supposed to provide.

So, for the beggar, in a social context devoid of morality, has he done something to feel entitled to the kindness or understanding? Is a homeless person who is actively seeking to get back into society, who perhaps ensures at night that other homeless people are ok and safe, and who tries to ensure a positive outlook in dealing with society entitled to society's help by the social contract we exist in?


In terms of personal/professional social contracts, anyone in a non-legal relationship is not really entitled to anything. Certainly if the relationship has been mutually beneficial, no one is entitled to anything from another person unless there was a spoken understanding and a leading to expectation.

Marriage is a legal social contract. There is certainly an entitlement expected by both parties, given that both parties have actually sought legal binding to ensure their personal options are limited to life with each other. This is a very formalised version of an understanding leading to expectation.

The only interesting 'social contract' leading to entitlement are children. No child asks to be born. Certainly society expects that anyone bringing a life into the world ensures that life contributes to the whole, and is not a drain. Personally, the child would certainly be entitled, being brought into the world, for their parents to give them due respect, and due aid in adapting to the world.

The very interesting question there is... how deep should this entitlement go? Should this sense of entitlement ever end? Is life a gift, and if so, is there ever a sense of entitlement a parent should expect in reverse?


In terms of morality, I do not think - excluding the above references to expectation in social contracts - that there is ever an entitlement of an action from a person's morality. Morality is personal, even if you personally decide to follow other codes. Those are still your decisions. If that is the case, then no one is entitled to the benefits, nor the penalties, of your morality. Outside of the social contract context, a homeless person should no more feel entitled to your money as they should be 'entitled' to your scorn nor abuse.

Basically, your own morality should compel you to action, and that action should be something you have applied thought to. Society as a whole or people in general are free to decide if they approve of this morality and wish to accept/reject you, but certainly neither society nor the people in it should every have a feeling of entitlement to your actions. However, I think there is a strong argument that society can reasonably possess an expectation for an individual to resolve the consequences of their actions.

[beowuuf]

Also, I forgot to buy the Greater Meaning of Liff (spelling deliberate) when I was in forbidden planet today. Darn

[Paul Stevens]

Here in the States, contracts are rather
frowned-upon if benefit flows in one
direction only. That is why we sell
things for one-dollar rather than give
them away. Your beggar and coin
contract is, at best, a one-way implied
contract.

Let us push it a bit.

Every day I see a man in line at the
employment office and hire him to
clean out my warehouse and workshop.
I have been doing this for years.
His life has come to depend on it.
He has been doing a good job.
I have often told him he is doing well.
Suddenly I decide to hire a different
man to do the job, without any
explanation or warning.

Is this more clearly less 'right''?
Or is it perhaps more clearly "right"
for some odd reason? I am not
decided.

The point being that we can
continue to push this parable
slowly in either direction so that
eventually any sane person will
find it 'right' on one side of some
arbitrary line and 'wrong' on the
other side. The insane ones
recognize no such concept as
'right'.

Human relationships
are more complicated. I have been
married 48 years. A somewhat
significant change occurred only
two or three years ago in our
understanding of how things should
work. For the better, I hasten to
add! Nothing I can put into words
but it is nevertheless quite real.
We are both intelligent people but
it took over 40 years of 7/24
experience to work out some little
aspect of our relationship. And it
is still not perfect by any means.
Soooooo....I wish luck to anyone
trying to work out such tough
questions.

Signed,
Your Frienldly Counsellor

[cowsmanaut]

sorry for the delay in response.. busy life as usual..

Zoom, I'm not at all worried. I'm not looking for absolutes in this case, nor am I arguing my side. I do as I always do in a debate and play devils advocate in order to ensure I get to see as many sides as possible. You would be surprised at how much easier it is to make your way through life when you are gifted with an understanding of many points of view. I find those moments in life that cause me the most problem are those when I'm presented with a situation I don't fully understand.

As to my view on the subject. I feel that while the beggar is not entitled to anything without having done something to gain it, or has previously gotten a promise of delivery of said coin from me. However, without warning of the coins stopping.. he is indeed entitled to being a bit miffed as it is likley that he has come to depend on that income.

Congrats on 48 years! I'm only at one so far and things are still nice and smooth. Though I noted two friends of mine appeared to be married a month before their divorce despite being engaged for a year and an additional 2 years dating. So I'd still say I'm doing ok and unlike the beggar, I'm obligated to support my wife for and additional 4 years at least, based on the canadian Governement's rules on importing your spouse

Honestly, I don't think this issue can really be pushed to seem more right or wrong to any individual unless a compelling argument can be made against that individuals standing that works with his/her morals. I find a lot of people set in their ways. I have friends who always give to beggars and others who absolutely refuse. You can argue them up and down about the others view but in most cases those people will not budge.. or if they do, it's only temporary.

as I said, I was only curious of people's viewpoints and if there were aspects that I had not thought about. The result is positive so far. I've seen some interesting views and a bit of dodging

[Gambit37]

Dodging? Some people don't have an opinion on it, that's all, or don't have the inclination to develop one.

For the record, I disagree with you. The beggar is not entitled to feeling miffed. He may well feel miffed, and that's understandable. But those feelings aren't an entitlement.

[cowsmanaut]

but isn't everyone entitled to their feelings? logical or not?

Dodging was started by Paul in his initial posts of questioning word choice and then explaining why the conversation should not happen. That was just me being cheeky though and not a negative statement.

as for not having an opinion.. Ultimately if someone is to take offense to you in some way, it's very hard to NOT have an oppinion of their actions.

How often has someone yelled or been offensive to you and you just happily disregarded it as if it was just the wind blowing? That you didn't form an oppinion about that person being an idiot or inappropriate, etc. Choosing to share that opinion however is a different story... and if people didn't want to share I was fine with that. As I've said several times.. this was simply a matter of curiosity.

[PaulH]

I think the key is what he does with those feelings. I would guess most people will feel some level of 'why not this time?'. It will depend on the person though for times, their behaviour etc.

[Gambit37]

As Paul S pointed out, I think we need to define terms.

"Entitlement" is a noun derived from the verb "entitle" which in my dictionary is defined as "to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim". The word comes from the actual act of giving a title to something. An entitlement must be bestowed before it can be received, therefore it's an act of giving, not receiving.

Modern usage has changed this from the original meaning to the secondary meaning (a right or claim to something). That's what you're talking about. But it's not possible for someone to have a right or a claim to their feelings, per se. Feelings are an instinctive reaction to an outside stimulus and are automatic; as such they are not something that one can "claim" or have "a right to", since you (a) have no control over them and (b) they weren't given to you. Feelings simply happen. You might better say that we have an innate ownership of our feelings, as I don't think "entitlement" is an appropriate word in this context.

I'm not arguing that the beggar in your example can't feel annoyed when he doesn't get the coin. Of course he'll be annoyed! But does he have a right to be annoyed? That's really what you're asking. I think he doesn't. Yes, the coin giver set up an expectation, and there will be consequences resulting in bad feelings for the beggar when the coin is withdrawn. But the giver has the right to withdraw it at any point, with impunity.

On another forum I visit, it's been pretty broken for the best part of this year. It hasn't received the attention it deserves. The moderators recently asked the users for suggestions on how to improve the content, get more engagement and create a better community feel. But as they hadn't fixed a bunch of technical problems, most people were annoyed and told them that they didn't deserve our suggestions when they hadn't fixed all the existing problems; problems that were causing ongoing issues with us engaging in the first place!

So what does that prove? No idea, but what's interesting with the insight from this thread is that I now think I should stop complaining about free forums when they don't work.

[cowsmanaut]

that's what I love.. new perspective enriches our minds

So yes, entitlement when put to it's original form is not a great word, though it felt like the most used in that context despite the fact it left me a bit akward feeling.. though I doubt birthright is much better As I mentioned above, I feel that to say anyone has a right or not to feelings is a moot point as that person will feel them regardless, that is more apropriate to say that their feelings on the matter are understandable or illogical to you. As to feelings being given or not, that itself can be argued as a person often feels something in reaction to something, often an action of another affecting their lives or perspective in a positive or negative way. Thus statements like "he gives me the creeps" "She's given me peace", "I've been given so much joy" .. we often see feelings as given. I've tried your argument that feelings are nothing more than instinctual and that the feelings of others are not my responsibility. Yet when someone does something that pisses me off, I can do nothing but blame that individual for my state of emotion. Now, there is intentional or not to add to that.. and that's more to the point. If someone intends you frustration, then your anger is more justified.. or if a persons continual negligence causes the feelings of anger to crop up then I'm certain that it is also justified as that person made a choice to be negligent..

I guess that I'm just fine with the beggar feeling miffed, but it still won't get them the coin Though that has more to do with the fact that the beggar is not someone I would know.. were it a friend I would be a bit more agitated about their negative feelings towards me.

[Paul Stevens]

If someone intends you frustration

Perhaps the coin-giver DID intend that. You
did not explain his reason for giving the
coin several days running.

Call the "Thought-Police"!

[cowsmanaut]

as a tax deduction

[T0Mi]

Never thought a seemingly 'simple' begger/coin question could end up like this.

Thanks for sharing.