Suppose some of my courtship tactics are designed to demonstrate my superior suitability as a husband vis a vis my rival. I wouldn't do those particular things if he wasn't also courting her. My objective isn't to make him worse off — that's a side effect of achieving my objective.
Suppose some of my courtship tactics are designed to demonstrate my superior suitability as a husband vis a vis my rival. I wouldn't do those particular things if he wasn't also courting her. My objective isn't to make him worse off — that's a side effect of achieving my objective.
Similarly with my fence. My objective isn't to make him worse off, it is to keep him from doing things to the land, such as building a house on it, that would prevent me from planting wheat on it. If I could achieve my objective without making him worse off, perhaps by pointing out a better location for his house, I would do so. Making him worse off is a side effect of my means for achieving my objective.
We may be in agreement about the fence, /given the details you have just added/. I say that you can appropriate some plot of land so long as you compensate those excluded. One way of doing that is by offering to renounce your rights over an equivalent plot of land ("pointing out a better location for his house"). If he refuses to accept this reasonable offer, then that is on him so long as your offer remains, and so his being worse off is only a side effect of your action, and your fence is justified.
The courtship example is more of a problem for me. The key point is that there would be no (net) benefit to you of engaging in the courtship tactics you mention, and you would not do so, if your rival were not interested in her, etc. As my neo-Lockean account stands, this implies (i) that you are intentionally making him worse off, and therefore (ii) that this is wrong without providing compensation. Now, if the first point were mistaken, if your making him worse off really were a mere side effect, then that would be OK by me, since then I would not have to say that your tactics are wrong. But I don't think that is correct. Your tactics display a competitive motivation, of trying to /defeat/ the other, and that clearly means that you are targeting your rival, in the sense I introduced in my previous comment. So it seems I have to say that you may not employ such tactics, and more generally that competitive tactics in the state of nature are impermissible, and that /does/ seem implausible.
Interesting response but I'm not convinced.
Suppose some of my courtship tactics are designed to demonstrate my superior suitability as a husband vis a vis my rival. I wouldn't do those particular things if he wasn't also courting her. My objective isn't to make him worse off — that's a side effect of achieving my objective.
Similarly with my fence. My objective isn't to make him worse off, it is to keep him from doing things to the land, such as building a house on it, that would prevent me from planting wheat on it. If I could achieve my objective without making him worse off, perhaps by pointing out a better location for his house, I would do so. Making him worse off is a side effect of my means for achieving my objective.
We may be in agreement about the fence, /given the details you have just added/. I say that you can appropriate some plot of land so long as you compensate those excluded. One way of doing that is by offering to renounce your rights over an equivalent plot of land ("pointing out a better location for his house"). If he refuses to accept this reasonable offer, then that is on him so long as your offer remains, and so his being worse off is only a side effect of your action, and your fence is justified.
The courtship example is more of a problem for me. The key point is that there would be no (net) benefit to you of engaging in the courtship tactics you mention, and you would not do so, if your rival were not interested in her, etc. As my neo-Lockean account stands, this implies (i) that you are intentionally making him worse off, and therefore (ii) that this is wrong without providing compensation. Now, if the first point were mistaken, if your making him worse off really were a mere side effect, then that would be OK by me, since then I would not have to say that your tactics are wrong. But I don't think that is correct. Your tactics display a competitive motivation, of trying to /defeat/ the other, and that clearly means that you are targeting your rival, in the sense I introduced in my previous comment. So it seems I have to say that you may not employ such tactics, and more generally that competitive tactics in the state of nature are impermissible, and that /does/ seem implausible.