Consider the below scenarios:

  1. Tèo bought you an ice-cream yesterday. You licked it innocently. Today, he suddenly demands you to let him copy your paperwork, because he did something good to you before. 
  2. Some parents reasoned that, because they gave birth to you and raised you, then as their child, you have the obligation to follow whatever they told you to do, whether it be stealing or being exploited.
  3. Bob is the new president of the country. He revived the national economy while providing job to millions of citizens during his first term. In his second term, he became corrupted and claimed for himself millions of tax dollars when nobody is watching. When finally got caught, he uttered: “What I took from you is a mere grain of sand compared to what I gave this country, you ungrateful plebs!”
  4. Clark Kampf saved the lives of more than 10 million people during a disaster. He earned his worthy status as a National Hero along with massive monetary rewards. 5 years later, he suddenly has an urge to destroy things, went on a rampage and destroy a whole town, torturing and killing 100+ innocent people during the process. He reasoned: “Well, I saved this whole nation once. Why does it matter that I take a few lives now?”

In (1), Tèo’s act of buying you an ice-cream is mostly bribery, taking advantage of your innocence to force you to benefit him afterwards. Had it not been for your paperwork, he might not intend to buy you any ice-cream. Thus, his act is hard to be justified here.

In (2), the parents’ intention when they gave birth to you might be harder to define, but it’s safe to assume that for the most part, they loved you. However, when they use that pure intention (love) as a reason to force you to do something for them, is it reasonable?

In (3), it’s true that Bob might have created hundreds of billion dollars in GDP while only claiming for himself an insignificant part of it. Even though his act is clearly illegal here, many of us might find his action reasonable, even justifiable. Theoretically, since he made all those money, he should receive some of it back, even if the Law normally doesn’t allow it to happen, right?

In (4), assuming that Clark Kampf is just a human being, which means Human Morality also applies to him, would his ‘trade-off’ make sense? Clearly, 10,000,000 > 100. But does it make sense to put the Act of saving lives and the Act of taking lives on the same scale, when these acts are conducted in different times and bear no consequence to each other? If Clark Kampf killed & tortured 100+ people in order to save 10,000,000 others, it would be easier to justify his actions. However, his act of killing and torturing happened AFTER he had saved 10,000,000 lives, and for his own sake, which makes it harder to justify.


Are we entitled to our past deeds? Depending on your answers to these scenarios, your perspective on what is right and wrong might change. If you say “Yes” to all of them, meaning they are all justified, then it is implied that all Goodwill are actually Debts. Whatever good things other people do to you, you have the obligation to pay them back. It is also implied that there is no ‘True’ Goodwill. We expect benefits for ourselves for everything we do. That means, even if you want to help a child crossing the street with no expectation of tangible returns, in a foreign nation where you might never visit again in your life, it is somehow still out of your ‘self-interest’. Sacrifice would become an ‘insane’ act to you. Oh, and Love might not even exist, according to this mindset.


If you say “No” to the first few but “Yes” to the last few scenarios, then you probably have a strong common sense. It might be hard for you to articulate your reason, but you can just “feel” that one is right while the other is not. The difference in extremity level is probably what makes you switch your answers as you proceed from (1) to (4). But doesn’t the main concept remain unchanged? The concept “If you helped people in the past, then you can demand from them in the future” is the same for all of the scenarios. You might argue that, for example in (3) and (4), what Bob and Kampf demanded was insignificant compared to their contributions. Then what if I increase the amount of their demands? What if Bob took billions of dollars instead? What if he later became a dictator and legalized criminal acts such as rape and murder? What if Kampf killed 100,000 people? 1,000,000 people? 9,999,999 people? What if he killed those people only 1 day after his act of salvation? 1 year? 10 years? Would your answers change and if they do, when exactly do they change? 8,453,012 people after 5 years, maybe?


If you say “No” to all of these, which means we are not entitled to our past deeds no matter how great they are, and that we are held responsible only for our current actions, then. THEN! Ok, ready? Here we go.


Loyalty to one person wouldn’t make sense. Say, you are in a relationship with someone. But if one day, your partner fell in love with another person and had an affair, then you simply cannot shackle him/her with the reason that because you gave the whole world to him/her, he/she should do the same and remain faithful to you. Both of you used to love each other, and you both brought happiness to each other out of Free will. Turning Free will into some kind of entitlement is a distortion of intention. Unless both of you made a vow that whoever cheat cannot escape the relationship without consequence, then you have no right to interfere with the other’s affair.


Respect other people because they are older wouldn’t make sense. They might have contributed a lot to improve the lives of future generations, but again, one generation is not the livestock of the previous’ generation. One does not choose to be born into this world, so whatever comes before his birth is not his obligation. With similar logic, Confucius’ Filial Piety should not be called a Virtue, but only a Social Obligation. A Virtue that looks at a parent’s goodwill as a child’s debt, turning love into responsibility, might not be as, what’s the word(?), 'Beautiful' as the word “Virtue” suggests.


If you say “No” to all kinds of past entitlement, it means you do whatever you do for the sake of it, without any expectation of returns.