Sense of Entitlement VS. Sense of Non-Entitlement

Page 1 of 1 [ 1 post ] 

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

20 May 2009, 3:24 pm

Being entitled to nothing like certain people here in the USA say we are entitled to is contradictory and inconsistent. Here is why.

Let's say we have the population set P and we have the individual set I and different indivdual sets or members can be a part of different population sets.

It is possible Populations sets and Individual sets are able to receive or be granted an entitlement from the set of Entitlements E.

Is it even possible for a particular population or individual to be granted all entitlements or denied all entitlements from the Entitlement set E.

This means is it possible for this statement "A person is entitled to nothing is absolutely true or absolutely true where all members are granted or denied. By the way ~ is the negation operator.

Here are the fundamental problems to taking this stament to absolutely true or absolutely false.


I will show through example by showing first showing some of the things I am not entitled too.

a. I am not entitled to murder in cold blood. b. I am not entitled to not murder in cold blood

a. and b. are contradictory if taken to together as entitlments I am not entitled to.

One these has to be true for me and not be a non-entitlement that I am truly not entitled too.

It has to be a.

Here is another example:
a. I am not entitled to rape a woman.b. A woman is not entitled to not be raped by me.

Again, these statements are contradictory and one must be true which obviously it is a. a is what I am not entitled too. b is false and a woman is entitled not to be raped by me.

One more example:

a. I am not entitled to steal someone else's money.b. Someone else is not entitled to prevent me from stealing their money.

The reverse is also true to what I am entitled too.

a. I am entitled to not rape a woman b. I am entitled to rape a woman. Again contradictory. a is what I am entitled to. Now let's get really trippy.

U=Universal

Set E is the set of all possible Entitlements. ~U is the empty set or nothing or that I'm entitled to ~U. What would happen if I made ~U a member of the set E itself?

This means since I am not entitled to nothing(empty set or Not U) then by this I am entitled to non-nothing. In effect, through this I can claim all members of entitlements I am entitled too. What I am saying is it's a bad idea for entitlement vs. non-entitlement to be dealt with in a absolute way either way and that some Indivdual members have some of the entitlement members and some Indvidual members do not have some of the entitlement members.

This goes for the population set too. If this statement "You're entitled to nothing is taken as an absolute and dealt in an absolute way" then people can claim entitlements through non-entitlements and vice-versa. This means this statement in itself dealt in an absolute way is inconsistent.