The goal is to hack your share in the number of individuals sharing benefits from CEV right?
On this goal I do not disregard all intentions alike.
That Rome wiped out Cathargo is not intentional with respect to hacking the CEV.
I’d argue that the deeds of our ancestors are time-barred because collective memory forgives that after sufficiently long time (you just have to ask the youth about the Holocaust to see this effect).
Thus even there is no statute of limitations on murder on the individual case there effectively is one on societies.
There is an effect of time on intentions. This is because it is usually recognized that you can only look only so far into the future even on you own goals.
Another approach via an analogy: Assume a rich ancestor dies and leaves a large inheritance and in his last will has benefitted all living ancestors alike (possibly even unborn ones via a family trust). Then by analogy the following holds:
If you kill anyone of the other heirs after the event you usually void your share.
If you kill anyone of the other heirs before the event and the legacy has made no exception for this then you still gain your share.
If you have children (probably including clones) it depends on the statement of the will (aha). If it is a simple heritage your children will only participate from your share if born after the event. If it is a family trust they will benefit equally.
The goal is to hack your share in the number of individuals sharing benefits from CEV right?
On this goal I do not disregard all intentions alike.
That Rome wiped out Cathargo is not intentional with respect to hacking the CEV. I’d argue that the deeds of our ancestors are time-barred because collective memory forgives that after sufficiently long time (you just have to ask the youth about the Holocaust to see this effect). Thus even there is no statute of limitations on murder on the individual case there effectively is one on societies.
There is an effect of time on intentions. This is because it is usually recognized that you can only look only so far into the future even on you own goals.
Another approach via an analogy: Assume a rich ancestor dies and leaves a large inheritance and in his last will has benefitted all living ancestors alike (possibly even unborn ones via a family trust). Then by analogy the following holds:
If you kill anyone of the other heirs after the event you usually void your share.
If you kill anyone of the other heirs before the event and the legacy has made no exception for this then you still gain your share.
If you have children (probably including clones) it depends on the statement of the will (aha). If it is a simple heritage your children will only participate from your share if born after the event. If it is a family trust they will benefit equally.