View Poll Results: Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (should)

    37 74.00%
  • Yes (shouldn't)

    0 0%
  • No (should)

    4 8.00%
  • No (shouldn't)

    9 18.00%
Page 8 of 65 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 645

Thread: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

  1. #71
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Yes it is. It's a principle of ethical morality, which states that every person has a sovereign right to his own person and his own actions, unless he willingly concedes that right to others, and assuming he doesn't violate the right of others, in commission of his desired actions. It's a classical liberal idea, thus not common or popular in this country.
    That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Ownership simply means that one has the exclusive right to use a particular thing.
    Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-18-12 at 12:31 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #72
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,450

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.
    That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
    You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.

    The whole notion that these documents with legal rights are important philosophically, is outrageous. There can be two societies (made up of individuals), that both lay claim to a particular area, for their own "legal reasons". Now what Cephus? The right to life is granted by society A, but society B rejects that claim. Who is going to save your argument now? Society A agree, society B doesn't! Throw up your hands in despair? If that's what your notion of right to life is based on, it's absurd.

    The right to life is recognized as being important based on two fundamental reasons:
    1. Humans on average value their life. A lot. Most have the intellectual capacitiy to recognize this. And most also have the honesty to admit it.
    2. As a matter of logical hierarchy, other rights require one to be alive to exercise them, so it has primacy, i.e. hierarchically more important.
    (There are other things that can trump it, but that's a different discussion)

    As Henrin notes (I think?), it starts with you...the individual. What you want, what you believe, and why. You can of course also be incorrect. You may also join up with others, and based on your individual belief that life is you know...important, you might codify it, and put on a pointy hat and claim "I have granted that right as a society!", and then Cephus will bow down and agree that only NOW do we understand where the right to life came from....

  3. #73
    Guru
    Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,699

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No it's not, it's based on society granting that right. Try again.
    No its not. It is based on an unalienable right bestowed from our Creator. Society only secures those rights, just because society does not kill me does not mean they have granted me anything.
    Last edited by Aberration; 06-18-12 at 12:47 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  4. #74
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,450

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    That's a long, drawn out statement that is much more than - and in some ways contradicts - the simple definition he used earlier: Would you care to defend his definition and how it applies to the ownership of a human being as an "ethical principle"?
    1. Each person in our group of 5, has the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. No one can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. No one should, under normal circumstances, take the life of one another, based on this rule. It would be unethical under normal circumstances to take the life of someone else.

    ->and, the opposite:

    2. Each person in our group of 5 does NOT have the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. One can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. There is no should with regards to taking life, or not taking life. Anyone can do it, or not, should do it, or not.
    -->Notice there is no rule of conduct here, it's indistinguishable from having "no rule". It is absurd to claim that "no ethics", is ethical.

    Of course, you can show an alternative, short, concise, example, of where we don't have a right to life under normal circumstances, and how it's ethical. Can you meet your own challenge?
    Last edited by Mach; 06-18-12 at 01:02 PM.

  5. #75
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    If souls exist, that would be you.
    How do you know? People say "I gave my heart to my spouse" all the time. Does that mean your spouse owns your heart? Or part of your spirit is what I'm getting at (not your physical heart).

    I'd call my soul far more important than my body. While they say it can be sold, if I sell it to someone else, what did they get? Looking at the image from eBay, who would pay $5000 for one?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,760

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aberration View Post
    No its not. It is based on an unalienable right bestowed from our Creator. Society only secures those rights, just because society does not kill me does not mean they have granted me anything.
    There is no creator, there are no inalienable rights. Try again.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Yeah I still own myself. I'm not married.

  8. #78
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    1. Each person in our group of 5, has the exclusive right to their own life under normal circumstances. No one can justifiably take the life of another based on this agreement. No one should, under normal circumstances, take the life of one another, based on this rule. It would be unethical under normal circumstances to take the life of someone else.
    In many groups, for example the Catholic Church, it is immoral to even take your own life. I believe it is also quite illegal in many jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like "exclusive right to use" to me.



    Ed:
    You people that try to claim the fleas own the dog. *shakes head* It's sad, really, that you can't understand the web of life and how intertwined it all is. To suggest any kind of "natural" ownership of or right to any living thing is arrogance at it's finest. It's understandable in this day and age more than any other how people can get so detached from nature, but it's still sad to see it in what I've always assumed are relatively intelligent adults.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-18-12 at 01:28 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #79
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,760

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    That's absurd Cephus. For what reason would these individuals, who in your estimation are considered a "society", draw up such a "legal right" as right to life?
    You're not accepting that there is a reason why such a right is recognized, you're just stating that the legal right is granted by society.
    Humans are a social species, we need to live together in groups to survive and thrive. These groups put together rules on how we ought to interact in order to strengthen bonds and make social interaction better. There are widespread similarities in a lot of these rules because we're all human and we all have the same needs. Most of these rules are based on enlightened self-interest. We don't want to be killed, therefore we recognize that we ought not kill others. We don't want our stuff to be stolen, therefore we recognize that we shouldn't steal from others. As we start to apply these rules to the majority of people within the society, we dub them "rights". Unfortunately, there have been times when some "rights" haven't applied to all the people, such as blacks or women or gays. We redefine what "rights" are all the time. We can measure how rights change over time and across the landscape. Every society has slightly different rights because that's how they've defined them.

    The whole notion that these documents with legal rights are important philosophically, is outrageous. There can be two societies (made up of individuals), that both lay claim to a particular area, for their own "legal reasons". Now what Cephus? The right to life is granted by society A, but society B rejects that claim. Who is going to save your argument now? Society A agree, society B doesn't! Throw up your hands in despair? If that's what your notion of right to life is based on, it's absurd.
    It's happened plenty of times in history, why don't you read a history book and find out how it worked out? Heck, the Bible records a couple of instances where God ordered the Israelites to go in and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal in an area. Right to life my ass. In a lot of these cases, like it or not, might makes right and the victor writes the history.

    The right to life is recognized as being important based on two fundamental reasons:
    1. Humans on average value their life. A lot. Most have the intellectual capacitiy to recognize this. And most also have the honesty to admit it.
    2. As a matter of logical hierarchy, other rights require one to be alive to exercise them, so it has primacy, i.e. hierarchically more important.
    (There are other things that can trump it, but that's a different discussion)
    Those are your rationalizations, you cannot demonstrate that either of them are factually true. Neither of them actually demonstrate the right is actually real, you're trying to rationalize it into existence.

    As Henrin notes (I think?), it starts with you...the individual. What you want, what you believe, and why. You can of course also be incorrect. You may also join up with others, and based on your individual belief that life is you know...important, you might codify it, and put on a pointy hat and claim "I have granted that right as a society!", and then Cephus will bow down and agree that only NOW do we understand where the right to life came from....
    It starts with the individual and as individuals come together, we come up with rules, some spoken, many unspoken, about how we will interact and deal with each other. Different groups with different views will develop different rules. What were rights for the ancient Mayans is not the same as what are rights for the modern Chinese. Your problem is you're looking for a single, universal, timeless set of "rights" that apply to everyone, everywhere, throughout time. You want something you can point to and declare "this is true and everything else is false". The problem is, that's just not reality. There is no universal, eternal set of moral or social absolutes that you can point to. They just don't exist.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #80
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyBurns View Post
    Due to our little debate in another thread figured we could find out what most of you thought.
    1st: What other thread?

    2nd: Should have checked the "make poll public" box when you made the poll. I would have loved to have known who picked the "no, shouldn't" option.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 8 of 65 FirstFirst ... 6789101858 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •