You find i suitacase on the ground. In it are thousands of dollars. You know who it belongs to. There will be no consequences if you keep it. Do you bring it back, if yes why? Convince me i should too.
>>18022736You're in some kind of groundhog day pocket universe with no consequences. The idea of following social conventions from the old universe is very stupid.
Yes, without rule of law we have no civilization. By keeping the suitcase you explicitly accept that thievery is okay, also when it happens to you. This is true even if you are the only one that knows. You cannot justify resisting evil if you commit it yourself willingly. Return the suitcase and the shopping cart.
My decision depends on who it belongs to and their net worthI'd give it back if they'd miss it
>>18022736If the goalposts is convincing you that you should, then that's simple - the bag belongs to someone, which logically implies they should have control over it and not you. Bringing it to them is the shortest way to achieve this.Now if the goalpost was to get you to do it, I'm not sure it can be met. You can always do something you know you shouldn't. But the shoulds and shouldn'ts are quite clear.
>>18022755You can tell us more about the nature of this "belonging" and "having control over it"?
>>18022762Stealing bad. Private property good.
>>18022762Yeah. It's ownership.
>>18022764Was the first private property stolen?
>>18022773If by first private property you mean the suitcase then it depends on whether you bring it back to the owner or not. If you mean whether the original owner stole it in the first place the answer is "we don't know, OP didn't provide that information so we cannot assume one or the other"
>>18022773OP says it belongs to someone in particular. If it were stolen, that would be false.
>>18022779I'm referring to the first person who claimed to be the owner of private property
>>18022787Yes, monkey #8468 stole a stick from the public fund of monkey troop #786 and claimed it forever.
>>18022787Aight, I might rephrase anyway.OP states that "we know who it belongs to" so we factually know the individual who is the rightful owner. It might not be the person who lost the suitcase but we know who we should bring it back to should we choose to.
I would only keep it if I knew for sure the owner would use it for evil
>>18022788Why not do the same in OP's case?
>>18022736I found a wallet and picked it up + the money that had fallen out of it even though some of it was wet/dirty from the road (i put it in one of those nylon shopping bags not the wallet and gave that to the owner) and walked it to the address in the wallet. Meanwhile other people routinely steal from me including literally millions of dollars worth of rap music that I created and other stole and made millions from, they gangstalk me, rape my mind with remote neural monitoring tech and terrorize, abuse, harass, threaten etc me for literally anything I think or do, and they think they can justify literally any crime committed against me by calling me "a peasant"
>>18022804OP's question is what he "should" do. Belonging addresses this "should". It could not be simpler than this.
>>18022833If your moral axiom is "if the money belongs to someone, and if I don't return it, there will be consequences, then I should return it", then since there is a guarantee in this case of there being no consequences, you can't derive the statement that you should return it.
>>18022827I don't have a specific memory of the interaction where I called you a "peasant" but I do have a general memory of our interaction and it is one of my words. It's not an insult but an exposition of your place in the world. It's said that 'knowing is half the battle' in my country, and I want you to know. Your real problem is probably the vegan or insufficient diet. B vitamins from nuts, legume, or meat will give you your rap music back.
>>18022907I don't have to go to the consequences to infer an "ought". The concept of belonging already includes an "ought".
>>18022954>The concept of belonging already includes an "ought".You haven't shown that
>>18022736>thousands of dollars.I don't live in a 3rd world shitskin country like yours so I wouldnt risk my life for what amounts my weeks salary.
>>18022959I didn't know you need me to show you that. What do you think ownership mean, Anon? If I know your understanding, I will be better able to explain it.
>>18022973If you look up ownership in a dictionary, it says: "to be in possession of something". If you look up possession, it says "to be in control of something". I don't see any oughts here, so you'll have to explain why you think ownership contains oughts.
>>18022990OP says the money belongs to someone who is not currently in control of it. Are you saying your reading of the dictionary renders this situation incomprehensible?I'm just trying to meet you halfway, this wasn't supposed to be a gotcha but you're slowly walking into one ...
>>18022998Maybe OP meant to say "belonged" to, since the previous owner clearly isn't in control of it now.
>>18023034So you are actually saying OP, phrased as it is, is not comprehensible to you...? In that case I cannot even concede the discussion since it is not being had at all. Furthermore, I think there are issues at hand much larger than ethics - namely just being out of touch with tacit social institutions and inter-personal concepts. That is a task too large for me or likely for anyone in this thread.
>>18023049No, I'm saying I understand the intent of OP's question and the point of this thread better than you. You are just trying to evade giving a well-reasoned answer because of... reasons I don't care to speculate about.
>>18023068>>phrased as it is, is not comprehensible>I understand the intentWe can figure out some of the greatest mysteries if we just get to adjust the phrasing, but granted that it is phrased as it is, you don't find it comprehensible. That is a major problem. Nobody will explain basics of ethics to you if you're acting so dense as to not understand the basics of human co-habitation. If your issue is that you don't see how belonging and ownership identify the person who should control an item... well, you're just gonna have to live like that. Couldn't be me.
>>18023091I don't really care about your posturing. You still haven't shown how an "ought" is contained in the concept of "ownership".
>>18022827are you viper? the ya'll cowards dude?
>>18023320>You still haven't shown how an "ought" is contained in the concept of "ownership".Correct. If you're being dense on purpose, it's a futile pursuit and in the slight case you're genuine, you've got bigger problems.
>>18022736it dependsI would check the owner's early life section on wikipedia first, just in case
>>18023335I accept your concession.
>>18023340I did not concede. See >>18023049
The smartest move would be to hand it to building management and ask for a written record.
>take $500 out>buy some weed>give the rest back knowing he wont notice some of it goneI'm a very simple man
>>18022736>see a suitcase on the ground that doesnt belong to you>rummage through it like some wild animalWhy?
>>18022736what'sIntheSatchel anon?
