This world is not ours

[Alarick]

I realize I'm a late-comer in this discussion, but I will add a few ideas of my own. To start, I believe there's little that can truely be said about your ideas because, as others have stated, you take leaps and bounds in the logical aspects of the theory. To say something is true is one thing. To show a reason for it being true is another.

When you build a house for yourself , you consider it to be yours because you built it , your are its owner . Someone who enters this house and then leaves it is just a visitor . Someone who comes and wants to live in this house becomes the tenant of the owner .
This is the same logic for planet Earth . Man did not create planet Earth , we are just tenants of this planet . Tenants cannot claim what is not theirs . Man cannot claim ownership of land , thus ownership of land is not morally right . Thus the existence of countries is some kind of hypocrisy (because ownership of land is not right ).
[right][snapback]75906[/snapback][/right]

This concept has the same "flaws" as most similar concepts about any moral rights. It is Euthyphro's Dilemma.

"Is something moral because we say it is moral, or do we say it is moral because it is?"

You are clearing stating the second side of this argument, but the first portion does still exist. You are calling ownership of land morally wrong, yet it could easily be argued that you want it to be so because you are calling it so, rather than it being the truth of the universe.

We can even get into the argument about whether morality is known or learned. If it is learned, than how can it be true that things are natually moral? On the other hand, if it is natural, why are there so many distinctions between the moral rights and wrongs of differing ethnic groups?

Having not read much of the thread in an effort to save time, I'm not 100% sure if any of this was addressed. I will say that I find your idea hard to take as truth.

The fact that man is part of nature does not imply that taking ownership of land is morally wrong. Even if it is true that it is morally wrong, there is more to this idea than simply man being a part of nature.

As a final statement, there's a large hurdle to be passed before any ground can be made in this argument, and it's one I don't believe can be passed easily, if at all. Your argument rest on the assumption that there are universal truths in morality. This concept is one of the most fought concepts in philosophy, and as far as I've been able to tell sits almost as high as the meaning of life and free will as philosophical concepts that require answers.

Even if you were to state plainly that this is a basic assumption to your argument, you would be struggling to gain any support from those that don't believe in its truth. This, sadly, is one of the reasons that little ever gets decided 100% in philosophy.