Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Mach said:

So who precisely is making the claim that "nobody owns anybody, even themselves"? Come on Cephus, make the claim.
But if no one is making the claim Cephus, there is no claim being made, it's no different than writing "nothing" on the topic, and being silent on the issue.

That's quite a third option...silence. Good thing our constitution isn't just blank.

Click to expand...

Property is something that is acted on, land and stuff fit into that category. These objects have no will of their own and thus are subject to being property or whatever we want to define them as basically. We just settle on property because that's how people tend to think. A person is a subject, not an object and something with will. Also one cannot really separate one's body from one's will, because they the same thing (namely the brain). Because of this, the concept of property does not really apply. This is why the idea of ownership over a person presents a false distinction, because falsely categorizes what people are.

Slavery happens and slavery is tragic, but keep in mind, its only tragic to people with an ounce of morality and many people do not have any sort of morality and do not see slavery as tragic. Morality is a common feature of humanity though as its its inbuilt by evolution to enable social behavior which increases our chances of survival. Because of this, we like to think of ourselves and our will as sacred due to this inbuilt desire, but objectively, it is not true. However, social instincts are the source of our rejection of slavery, but people should not confuse their emotional rejection of these kinds of things with any sort of valid philosophy. Many libertarians do though and base their arguments on this sort of emotional appeal. Look beyond the emotion into what is true.

There is some grey area in how I see things, like brain dead people, animals, advanced AI (if it ever happens) but maybe I will work through those questions or maybe not. Its an admitted flaw in my viewpoint though.

megaprogman said:

Property is something that is acted on.

Click to expand...

Different argument. Ownership has been jawed about semantically for various reasons in this thread.
Either we're talking about individual freedom, natural rights types of "I own the choice", or we're talking about a law that states that "I can own myself".
If the former, you aren't refuting it.
If the latter, there is no need for debate, it's moot, irrelevant, silly, etc. (i.e. I agree) I assumed the "own yourself" was done to be provocative, not literal.

Mach said:

Different argument. Ownership has been jawed about semantically for various reasons in this thread.
Either we're talking about individual freedom, natural rights types of "I own the choice", or we're talking about a law that states that "I can own myself".
If the former, you aren't refuting it.
If the latter, there is no need for debate, it's moot, irrelevant, silly, etc. (i.e. I agree) I assumed the "own yourself" was done to be provocative, not literal.

Click to expand...

I didn't bother to read the rest of the thread so I am not going to base my arguments on those posts. If you wish to address my viewpoint, please do so.

megaprogman said:

I didn't bother to read the rest of the thread so I am not going to base my arguments on those posts. If you wish to address my viewpoint, please do so.

Click to expand...

Sure. I think the underlying assumption in many of our reasonable laws, rights, moral outlooks, phiosophical ethical frameworks, etc., all have as an underlying premise some form of this "self-ownership". Because it seems so obvious, we don't always recognize it.

What do property rights give you? The right to choose what happens with that property.
The same question can in that sense, apply to you. Who has the right to choose what happens with you, i.e. what choices you get to make, where you get to work, how long you work, whether you live or die.

The problem with your argument here:

Also one cannot really separate one's body from one's will, because they the same thing (namely the brain). Because of this, the concept of property does not really apply.

Click to expand...

Is that you are, as far as I can tell, claiming that you should not be able to choose what happens with your body, yourself.
Notice that both of these alternatives:
a. someone else gets to choose what happens wtih you (including the person claiming this)
b. no one gets to choose what happnes with you (except the person claiming this of course!)
...Both fall logically on the side of "you should NOT be able to choose what happens with your body".

While you may agree that a) is wrong, but suggest b) instead, it's contradictory. Whoever is declaring b) to be the law of the land, just assumed control, made the choice for you...even if that choice is to give you a long leash.

The baseline has to be that you should own yourself. Sure there are emergency and boundary issues that will challenge that, that's fine. We do a fairly good job of detailing those in laws, with jury's, etc. That's why in the U.S. we are normally free to leave, and renounce our citizenship. Thankfully our legal system in that respect is consistent with this view of self-choice.

Mach said:

Sure. I think the underlying assumption in many of our reasonable laws, rights, moral outlooks, phiosophical ethical frameworks, etc., all have as an underlying premise some form of this "self-ownership". Because it seems so obvious, we don't always recognize it.

What do property rights give you? The right to choose what happens with that property.
The same question can in that sense, apply to you. Who has the right to choose what happens with you, i.e. what choices you get to make, where you get to work, how long you work, whether you live or die.

Click to expand...

And these things are desirable because it is natural for humans to want to do things which makes them feel good. In general, I see ways to promote prosperity, happiness, well being, etc, so there is plenty of reason to support them on a valid basis without having to resort to natural law. People are going to want these things. I don't see whether some legal fad as being really important in terms of actual fact.

I think you are right that the tie ins from this philosophy to human psychology are important, but that is as far as I think we should go with it.

Mach said:

The problem with your argument here:

Is that you are, as far as I can tell, claiming that you should not be able to choose what happens with your body, yourself.
Notice that both of these alternatives:
a. someone else gets to choose what happens wtih you (including the person claiming this)
b. no one gets to choose what happnes with you (except the person claiming this of course!)
...Both fall logically on the side of "you should NOT be able to choose what happens with your body".

The baseline has to be that you should own yourself. Sure there are emergency and boundary issues that will challenge that, that's fine. We do a fairly good job of detailing those in laws, with jury's, etc.

Click to expand...

People will seek to choose what happens to themselves whether they should or not, its what people do and its tied heavily into how we are programmed to see the world. The should is really not that important, it is. Its the same sort of thing like a person's mind and body, it is. There is no need for distinction here.

grip said:

I agree the energy my body came from is part of the universe. Most scientific absolutists will assert that my body is all that I am and yet since my bodies energy is part of the universe, maybe I'm more than I know?

Click to expand...

Nah. The materials your body is composed of came from the universe. No reason to give yourself more significance than that.

megaprogman said:

People will seek to choose what happens to themselves whether they should or not, its what people do and its tied heavily into how we are programmed to see the world. The should is really not that important, it is. Its the same sort of thing like a person's mind and body, it is. There is no need for distinction here.

Click to expand...

You really didn't take one of the logically presented choices. Why not?

And let's be clear that my seeking to prevent you from taking, for example, my children, just because you want some new farm-hands, ensures that:

1. There is a should with regards to that choice
2. That the should is important
3. That there is a distinction with regards to who should get to make that choice, and that a choice should be made

I do agree that we can be entirely silent on this, and all issues, entirely zen. We are all in a sense, appendages of the same universe, we think we are unique and different but we're all still cosmically, literally, part of the same universal existence that "is". I think there are important lessons to learn from that, and that underneath it all this is the foundation from which we bicker and squabble, live and die. Great. But the second we choose to remark about something, rather than simply "being", you get right back to logic, reason, natural rights, etc., whether you want to or not, they are self-evident (once we go down the path of discussing...anything).

Mach said:

You really didn't take one of the logically presented choices. Why not?

Click to expand...

I already pointed out what I thought were false assumptions, your choices relied on those assumptions, so I did not see a valid choice. Hell pointing out this false dichotomy is why I got back into this thread today. Unless you can actually refute my points, there is no use in simply asserting it over and over.

Mach said:

And let's be clear that my seeking to prevent you from taking, for example, my children, just because you want some new farm-hands, ensures that:

1. There is a should with regards to that choice
2. That the should is important
3. That there is a distinction with regards to who should get to make that choice, and that a choice should be made

I do agree that we can be entirely silent on this, and all issues, entirely zen. We are all in a sense, appendages of the same universe, we think we are unique and different but we're all still cosmically, literally, part of the same universal existence that "is". I think there are important lessons to learn from that, and that underneath it all this is the foundation from which we bicker and squabble, live and die. Great. But the second we choose to remark about something, rather than simply "being", you get right back to logic, reason, natural rights, etc., whether you want to or not, they are self-evident (once we go down the path of discussing...anything).

Click to expand...

And all of those things are a veneer on top of what is really going on and what humans actually are. We engage in these philosophical for certain reasons, they make us feel good, they provide us with some benefit, we convince ourselves that they are true, other. In general, people who are proponents of a particular philosophy see the benefits of that philosophy to be something they desire for whatever reason. I say dispense with that artificial constraint and just go for what we collectively seek. Lots go with the salad bar model and take the things we like, dispense with what we don't and not worry too much about logical consistency, because people are not logically consistent and people will never fit well within a logical model. ANY model, even one that generally seeks to promote freedom (at least one of the many definitions of freedom) will always impose on people for that reason, humans and logic do not always mix well. This is why we need moderation in any philosophy to account for what really goes on. This is also why any rigorous study of any social theory gets very complicated after enough scholarship.

Some things are known:
1. People generally desire peace and to do what they want to do.
2. People generally desire safety, comfort, and some sense of knowing whats going on and power over their environment.
3. People generally desire the company of other people and relationships have great power over our behavior.
4. A LOT of human wants tend to conflict with one another since we have some constraints we have to prioritize. However priorities also depend on the situation.
Probably other stuff, but my kids are quite loud right now so its hard to concentrate.

Lets look at what promotes those things and not worry about some overarching theory that is going to be flawed in one way or another.

Ultimately, these are questions we need to start giving over to science rather than philosophy, so we can actually gain some understanding of humanity which is progressing much faster due to things like MRI than it ever did due to some philosopher dreaming up some speculation of one sort or another.

This arguement of self ownership goes hand in hand with the basic tenets of Pro-choice in that women have exclusive and sole ownership of their own bodies. So I find it rather hypocritical of some of the Pro-choicers on this thread to argue against this basic unalienable right of women. So Pro-Choicers, do women or do they not own their vaginas? Yes or no?

Moot said:

This arguement of self ownership goes hand in hand with the basic tenets of Pro-choice in that women have exclusive and sole ownership of their own bodies. So I find it rather hypocritical of some of the Pro-choicers on this thread to argue against this basic unalienable right of women. So Pro-Choicers, do women or do they not own their vaginas? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

This is a very good point and highlights one of the problems of taking any philosophy absolutely. There is bound to be conflict since the real world is always messy.

megaprogman said:

I already pointed out what I thought were false assumptions, your choices relied on those assumptions, so I did not see a valid choice.

Click to expand...

Logic is a false choice? A, not-A. You still want the third option even though by definition that covers all choices. I see we'll be stopping there.

Ultimately, these are questions we need to start giving over to science rather than philosophy, so we can actually gain some understanding of humanity which is progressing much faster due to things like MRI than it ever did due to some philosopher dreaming up some speculation of one sort or another.

Click to expand...

Science also relies on logic. The consistent negative emotional appeals (dreaming up, speculation a fad.) are not swaying me.

The next time an MRI lobbies for pension and tenure using my tax dollars, I suppose I'll start to come around. I work in technology by the way, and part of that is high reliability products, which are involved in a wide variety of medical devices. Like democrats always say politically, we can do both.

Mach said:

Logic is a false choice? A, not-A. You still want the third option even though by definition that covers all choices. I see we'll be stopping there.

Click to expand...

Logic is fine, so long as the supporting assumptions are valid. Its like a building, if the foundations are bad, don't go in. The simple fact is that I disagree with the theoretical model presented which leads to the whole discussion of ownership. I have explained why I do not support your axioms. Notice I also used logic, iso ts not something that your argument containts a monopoly of, so get off your high horse about logic because you do not have the arguments to justify you being up there.

If you want to complain about logic, use it yourself.

Mach said:

Science also relies on logic. The consistent negative emotional appeals (dreaming up, speculation a fad.) are not swaying me.

The next time an MRI lobbies for pension and tenure using my tax dollars, I suppose I'll start to come around. I work in technology by the way, and part of that is high reliability products, which are involved in a wide variety of medical devices. Like democrats always say politically, we can do both.

Click to expand...

I agree, science relies on logic, but its not philosophy and uses, imho, better starter material than logical proofs, by way of using real world examples and experimentation which is far more reliable. The negative emotional appeals are simply the result of my opinion about the validity of using logical proofs without anything real to point to in order to validate those truths and not meant to sway anyone. But yes I agree, we can do both, however when they give conflicting information, such as what I pointed out in my previous post, my preference is for science.

Moot said:

This arguement of self ownership goes hand in hand with the basic tenets of Pro-choice in that women have exclusive and sole ownership of their own bodies. So I find it rather hypocritical of some of the Pro-choicers on this thread to argue against this basic unalienable right of women. So Pro-Choicers, do women or do they not own their vaginas? Yes or no?

Click to expand...

No they don't - and they certainly don't have (recognized) exclusive rights to it's use or the government couldn't outlaw prostitution.

As I understand it, that does not undermine the SCOTUS position on abortion, though, since I believe that's based on privacy, not property?


If no one can own a person then there is still no conflict.

megaprogman said:

This is a very good point and highlights one of the problems of taking any philosophy absolutely. There is bound to be conflict since the real world is always messy.

Click to expand...

I think it's a good point too, but I think it's because she highlighted a logical contradiction (or potential one depending on their response). And if they were interested in being logically consistent, and/or correct, they would try to resolve it.

At least, that's what you do every day at work when you solve problems (I assume!). Why do you rely on it when it counts, but then refuse it when you have the liesure to? How does emotional persuasion work on solving computer issues...can you belittle the code into behaving? If so, that's actually pretty cool.

Mach said:

Logic is a false choice? A, not-A. You still want the third option even though by definition that covers all choices. I see we'll be stopping there.

Click to expand...

A: You have stopped beating your wife.
not-A: You have not stopped beating your wife.

Which is it???
(And if you're not married feel free to substitute girlfriend, mother, sister, or whoever.)

Or would you like a "third option"?

Mach said:

I think it's a good point too, but I think it's because she highlighted a logical contradiction (or potential one depending on their response). And if they were interested in being logically consistent, and/or correct, they would try to resolve it.

At least, that's what you do every day at work when you solve problems (I assume!). Why do you rely on it when it counts, but then refuse it when you have the liesure to? How does emotional persuasion work on solving computer issues...can you belittle the code into behaving? If so, that's actually pretty cool.

Click to expand...

Just because I reject philosophy for what I view as a superior method of gathering information about the world doesn't mean I reject logic... :roll:

Philosophy is simply one use for this method of thinking. There are better uses...

Once you realize there is more than one way to use logic, you will understand I guess.

Though communism failed miserably in the colonies.

Click to expand...

YOu do realise that the pilgrams that supposedly followed communism were actually chartered by the london company, they were a subsidiary of a for profit corporation ... hardly "communist."

You want to see a good example see anarchist catelonia.

I hope the farmer takes the earlier-you's advice and defends his property from the later-you.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between "the community" which are directly effected by the economic rights that the community themself give, and an group of vandals.

Also if a single farmer can defend an area, chances are that area isn't that important, its more like a possession, thats not the same as actual property.

Nothing wrong with capitalism, its only when government is strong enough to meddle in the free market that you start to find todays crony capitalism/corporatism.

Click to expand...

Corporatism is the natural outcome of capitalism, of coarse capitalists will start manipulating civil law.

megaprogman said:

Logic is fine, so long as the supporting assumptions are valid.

Click to expand...

I just don't see that you pointed out precisely which supporting argument was wrong, and why.

I agree, science relies on logic, but its not philosophy and uses, imho, better starter material than logical proofs, by way of using real world examples and experimentation which is far more reliable.

Click to expand...

They were originally interchangeable concepts, doh.
I agree that "all" of philsophy is a joke - as a whole. But that's only because as you note, it's harder to falsify than hard sciences. Economics is hard to falsify, yet parts of your life are shaped by career economists who have authority over certain aspects of your life. Surely you can see how them being right, or wrong, is important..in reality...to you.

The kicker, here is Science form wikipedia:

Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

Click to expand...

That's more than just "logic" that it relies on. Underlying assumptions, there it is again.

The negative emotional appeals are simply the result of my opinion about the validity of using logical proofs without anything real to point to in order to validate those truths and not meant to sway anyone. But yes I agree, we can do both, however when they give conflicting information, such as what I pointed out in my previous post, my preference is for science.

Click to expand...

Christians try to use logic for apologetics...I know it can be annoying when it's misused. You can differentiate between apologetics use of logic and science though, surely you can differentiate good philosophy from bad, just as you must admit we regularly differentiate good science from bad.

Mach said:

I just don't see that you pointed out precisely which supporting argument was wrong, and why.

Click to expand...

Please review my post about how property doesn't apply to humans because humans are actors, not objects. You may not agree, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't do your argument justice.

Mach said:

They were originally interchangeable concepts, doh.
I agree that "all" of philsophy is a joke - as a whole. But that's only because as you note, it's harder to falsify than hard sciences. Economics is hard to falsify, yet parts of your life are shaped by career economists who have authority over certain aspects of your life. Surely you can see how them being right, or wrong, is important..in reality...to you.

Click to expand...

So people have influence in a particular discipline have some say over our lives. I fail to see why this is relevant.

Mach said:

The kicker, here is Science form wikipedia:

That's more than just "logic" that it relies on. Underlying assumptions, there it is again.

Christians try to use logic for apologetics...I know it can be annoying when it's misused. You can differentiate between apologetics use of logic and science though, surely you can differentiate good philosophy from bad, just as you must admit we regularly differentiate good science from bad.

Click to expand...

With no objective criteria in which to judge, good philosophy from bad is a matter of opinion. This is one of the problems of philosophy.

MoSurveyor said:

A: You have stopped beating your wife.
not-A: You have not stopped beating your wife. Which is it??? (And if you're not married feel free to substitute girlfriend, mother, sister, or whoever.)
Or would you like a "third option"?

Click to expand...

Concise!

Identify the premise Mosurveryor and it's trivial.

1. Mach has beaten his wife.
2. It has either stopped, or not.

Your premise 1. is false. See how easy it is when you are reasonable? Thanks Mo, you debate efficiently.

Which premise of mine was false? I pointed it out in one quick response, surely anyone can do the same instead of all the typing.

The premise that property applies to humans is false.

This has been pointed out repeatedly.

megaprogman said:

So people have influence in a particular discipline have some say over our lives. I fail to see why this is relevant.

Click to expand...

You fail to see why someone else having a say in your life is relevant? I assume if you don't qualify that, it's absurd.

With no objective criteria in which to judge, good philosophy from bad is a matter of opinion. This is one of the problems of philosophy.

Click to expand...

You're making a contradiction though.
You claim science is good, the best even. That philosophy is a matter of opinion and you can't judge good philosophy from bad. Yet according to that quote, science relies on accepting some philosophical assumptions!. Your skepticism is logically inconsistent with the premise that science uses these underlying, philosophical assumptions:

ScienceWiki said:

(1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers;
(2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;
(3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

Click to expand...

In other words, if you can't tell good philsophy from bad, and science relies on philosophy, you can't tell good science from bad. You want to sink with that ship? No need, there are plenty of life boats.

Self-ownership is axiomatic: I must own myself before I can own anything else (there must be an owner for something to be owned). If I don't own myself, but rather exist in some sort of nebulous state without belonging, it means that nothing else can belong to me, either - there is a causal relationship between the two.

This is very different from a vulgar, Randian concept of self-ownership, though, which reifies ownership above the owner. Stirner makes a fine case for this distinction:

But my property is not a thing, since this has an existence independent of me; only my might is my own. Not this tree, but my might or control over it, is what is mine.

Now, how is this might perversely expressed? They say I have a right to this tree, or it is my rightful property. So I have earned it by might. That the might must last in order that the tree may also be held - or better, that the might is not a thing existing of itself, but has existence solely in the mighty ego, in me the mighty - is forgotten. Might, like other of my qualities (humanity, majesty, etc.) , is exalted to something existing of itself, so that it still exists long after it has ceased to be my might. Thus transformed into a ghost, might is - right.

Click to expand...

In answer to the poll: yes, and my self-ownership is absolute.

Mach said:

You fail to see why someone else having a say in your life is relevant? I assume if you don't qualify that, it's absurd.

Click to expand...

This is an example of influence, not ownership.

Mach said:

You're making a contradiction though.
You claim science is good, the best even. That philosophy is a matter of opinion and you can't judge good philosophy from bad. Yet according to that quote, science relies on accepting some philosophical assumptions!. Your skepticism is logically inconsistent with the premise that science uses these underlying, philosophical assumptions:

Click to expand...

So far, this assumptions have been verified through physical experimentation or observation and have been held up However, you are correct that they can be falsified at any point though as we gain more information about the world we find ourselves in, so these assumptions are being held up by more than just logic. This would be an example of an objective criteria in which to judge something by. How does one similarly verify the results of a chain of logic in philosophy? Using logic once can conclude just about anything given the right starting point and with human fallibility we cannot take it on faith that some assumption (whether or not we call it self evident) is a good foundational axiom without that external verification.