>>Try a change of metaphor and see how it tickles your intuition buds:
>you're shipwrecked, starving hungry, walking along a beach. You see a
>woman roasting a pig. Are you justified in just grabbing the pig
>because her roasting of the pig was an "act of enclosure", and therefore
>a dastardly initiation of coercion?<
>
>In my opinion this is what is wrong with ethics and morals. Your
>view of life and human consciousness is so narrow--trying to
>explain the splendor of existence with a weenie roast on Gilligan's
>Island. Shame on you.
>
It's a thought experiment, like any kind of experiment: you hold some parameters steady while
twiddling the knob on others. The idea is to draw out one's intuitions
and presuppositions on the matter, to see if they're coherent with each
other. It's called philosophy.
Guru George