# The Morality of Entitlement



## Michael (Nov 15, 2009)

Fleshing out a thought here for feedback....

*"The boundaries of our entitlement due from another are defined by the least that we ourselves have given."*

True or false? [Feel free to tweak it]

Following this through to divine proportions: God, being perfect and holy in all of his actions, is entitled to nothing less than perfection.


----------



## smhbbag (Nov 15, 2009)

As with all things philosophical, the definition of terms and a defined scope of the statement is critical.



> "The boundaries of our entitlement due from another are defined by the least that we ourselves have given."



Looking vertically between God and man, it appears this works, at least on the surface. God is entitled to everything we have. Man, having given nothing to God that He should be repaid (Romans 11:35), is entitled to nothing from God.

Yet, what do we count as an entitlement? How do promises fit in this principle?

When I "claim" a promise of God - like being credited the righteousness of Christ on the basis of faith and repentance - is that an "entitlement"? If we are "entitled" to what we have been promised, then that would need to be added to the statement to make it more precise.

Looking between man and man, however, this statement is far more troublesome and complicated in application. 

First, there is a problem with measurement. How do we estimate the values of what we have given to others, so that we can know the boundaries of our entitlement? What do I get in return for years of faithful friendship? Or praying for others? The value of these things is immeasurable. 

Second, we are all gifted differently - there are men of great means and men of no means. With material giving, how is this accounted for? Let's say a poor man and a rich man both give to help another poor believer. Is the rich giver entitled to more X (love, honor, money?) from the recipient than the poor giver is? Do we base this on percentage of personal wealth given? What's the standard?

The issue of promises also comes up between men. Am I "entitled" to what someone has promised me with his own bonded word, even if I have given him nothing? If so, that would need to be added to the principle.

What about things men are commanded to do? Children are commanded to honor their parents, and church members to honor their elders. Are parents and elders "entitled" to this honor? If that counts as an entitlement, the principle would also need to allow for this - that we are entitled to what other men are commanded to give us.

Lastly - what does "entitlement" even imply? Is the entitled individual given the right to demand/confront the one who owes him something? 

Given that elders and parents and civil authorities are entitled to our obedience and honor, to what extent are they given freedom to demand it from us? When could the entitled individual mete out penalties for people not giving what he is entitled to? Is entitlement merely theoretical, or does it have any teeth on the front lines? 

I hate to seem obtuse, because this is a really great question that stimulated a lot of thought in me. And maybe I'm just oversimplifying....but....

I'm very hesitant to make sweeping ethical principles with terms and perspectives not explicitly revealed in Scripture. Are we somehow missing out by simply saying something like:

"A man owes to God whatever God says he owes - and that is everything. A man owes to his fellow man what God says he owes. According to the authority structures given on Earth - family, church, and state - these debts will be enforced to the extent that scripture says they ought to be enforced. If no enforcement provision is given by God in scripture to one of these institutions, these men are to leave room for the wrath of God, and preach the truth to those in error."


----------



## Michael (Nov 16, 2009)

Thanks for your reply Jeremy. I've been trying to wrap my mind around this as well for some time now. It is a very concise statement and I agree that there seems a need for a fair amount of defining and clarification. I'm still sorting through whether or not it can hold water when all is set and done. 



smhbbag said:


> As with all things philosophical, the definition of terms and a defined scope of the statement is critical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Promises must fit in this in order for the thought to hold true.



> When I "claim" a promise of God - like being credited the righteousness of Christ on the basis of faith and repentance - is that an "entitlement"? If we are "entitled" to what we have been promised, then that would need to be added to the statement to make it more precise.


Yes, if God has made a promise the recipient would be entitled to the fruition of that promise. However, we could have an entirely different discussion about actual identity of the recipients/non-recipients based upon their claims to the promise.

Surely I could have worded that better but I'm typing off the cuff in the little time I have...



> First, there is a problem with measurement. How do we estimate the values of what we have given to others, so that we can know the boundaries of our entitlement? What do I get in return for years of faithful friendship? Or praying for others? The value of these things is immeasurable.


Many things would no doubt be immeasurable to us, yes. But not necessarily immeasurable period. If it is measurable by God and in accordance with the standards of his nature, then the basic application could be useful to us in practical ethics.



> Second, we are all gifted differently - there are men of great means and men of no means. With material giving, how is this accounted for? Let's say a poor man and a rich man both give to help another poor believer. Is the rich giver entitled to more X (love, honor, money?) from the recipient than the poor giver is? Do we base this on percentage of personal wealth given? What's the standard?


I've toiled over this part as well. My assumption would be that we are speaking very relatively here. However, again with God's eye on all things would not the statement still ring true?



> The issue of promises also comes up between men. Am I "entitled" to what someone has promised me with his own bonded word, even if I have given him nothing? If so, that would need to be added to the principle.


I would keep it simple here. If a man had promised you something, your moral entitlement to that promise would not only be based upon your dealings with him, but all of your promises and dealings to all people. I understand that this is sort of a forensic view of morality though. While it may appear fruitless on the surface to examine this in a vacuum, there would seem a wealth of appreciation for the righteousness of Christ once it is better understood.



> What about things men are commanded to do? Children are commanded to honor their parents, and church members to honor their elders. Are parents and elders "entitled" to this honor? If that counts as an entitlement, the principle would also need to allow for this - that we are entitled to what other men are commanded to give us.


Here is where it gets the most interesting for me. The reason is because God interjects and places his structure upon society--regardless of our agreement. For instance, you mention children are commanded to honor their parents. Well those parents may have been bad children themselves at one point. They may very well be despicable people in general. Yet God commands that their own children must honor and obey them. Here I struggle with a split sense of measure. The parents may not really be worth any of what they receive in honor or obedience, however, God is owed that from the child and it must be displayed through their disposition and behavior toward the parents. 



> Lastly - what does "entitlement" even imply? Is the entitled individual given the right to demand/confront the one who owes him something?
> 
> Given that elders and parents and civil authorities are entitled to our obedience and honor, to what extent are they given freedom to demand it from us? When could the entitled individual mete out penalties for people not giving what he is entitled to? Is entitlement merely theoretical, or does it have any teeth on the front lines?


I am speaking of entitlement from God's perspective, nestled within the moral fabric by which he will judge all men in their behavior. In this sense, though the reality of entitlement exists between men, we are ultimately at the mercy of God to execute judgment upon all moral transactions.


----------



## JTB (Nov 16, 2009)

Michael Turner said:


> Fleshing out a thought here for feedback....
> 
> *"The boundaries of our entitlement due from another are defined by the least that we ourselves have given."*
> 
> ...



I think you need to make some distinctions about what categories you wish to consider the proposition under.

For example, ontologically, we own all of our "possessions" from God, and are thereby not entitled to anything (having given nothing).

Yet, legally, we have been entitled with certain things according to the Law (again, things which we have not, properly speaking, "given" to some other). For example, I am entitled to protect my life according to the sixth commandment, but I do not have to "give" my life to another in order to have that entitlement, unless perhaps you want to say that I have to "give" my life to God who has given it to me.


----------

