Titled, but not Entitled

What does it mean to be entitled?

Is anyone legitimately entitled to anything?

By my understanding, to be “entitled” is the concept that an individual should receive a positive attribute, based on their figurative position, status, or accomplishments.

Similar to the concept of “deserving” (as I described in my previous post), being “entitled”, is based on the concept that someone should receive something. “Deserving” has more of insinuation, that the individual should receive something as a result of their actions, where being “entitled” insinuates that they should receive something as a result of their status. Their status or position, could be as a result of their actions (just like “deserving”), but could also be circumstantial.

As in my previous post, I distinguished the term “should”, to be subjective, unless in context. So in relation to “entitlement”, the prospect that someone “should” receive something, is opinionated, unless there is context which outlines parameters. If the context of the situation includes an agreed upon designation of status or position, respective to what they will be attributed, then by definition of the context, someone “should” receive something if they are in the designated position.

For eg. Sally is promoted to executive producer (whatever that might entail specifically :), and it has been agreed upon, between employees and company owner, that someone in the position of executive producer will receive benefits of an additional week of vacation. Within that context, Sally is entitled to and should receive that extra week of vacation.

Is there any generically objective positions in life, that are entitled to benefits that an individual should receive? If there was entitlement which is fundamental to the position of existing, there would have to be parameters which were agreed upon by all proponents. It seems there is no such parameters which are definitively agreed upon in the context of existing. Since the concept of “”entitlement” requires all individuals who are involved, to agree on the designations, there could always be someone or something that disagrees with the designations. For eg, you may have the belief that existence entitles the individual to a long and happy life. But, a crocodile did not agree to that designation, and would still kill an antelope, when it’s hungry, therefore disallowing something with the status of existing, to live a long life.

It seems, simply having the status of existing, does not necessarily entitle any individual to anything. But, this also doesn’t mean that nobody has entitlement from anyone, in any situation. It means, the only entitlement that should be rationally expected in life, is receiving something within context, from other individuals whom have agreed to those parameters. There can be numerous elastic parameters of entitlement in life, which includ different people at different times, based on their comprehension and agreement. It can be very difficult to determine who should be included for entitlement within specific context, since it is based on their agreement to the outlines of that entitlement.

Perhaps it can be beneficial to keep in mind, that general existence does not fundamentally entitle anything. Existing in the 1st place, could be considered receiving a positive quantity of something, since without it, there would be zero. To assume that receiving something (existence) entitles us to something more, seems like a misunderstanding of concept, and false assumption. In life and society, we might want to assume that we have a certain status, and expect to receive something for it, but all it takes is a differing opinion (or no opinion at all (from an inanimate object (as a result of cause and effect))) to negate legitimate entitlement.

In a lot of cases, we might be titled, but not entitled.