• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you own yourself (self ownership)?

Do you own yourself (self ownership)? Should or shouldnt you own yourself?

  • Yes (should)

    Votes: 32 76.2%
  • Yes (shouldn't)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No (should)

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • No (shouldn't)

    Votes: 7 16.7%

  • Total voters
    42
I agree with you. People don't have absolute control over themselves. A you point out, one's choices may be be influenced by any number of factors, including the subconscious. The ethical question is simply who gets to do the choosing, the person or someone other than the person?

Its a good question and often one with a very complex answer. This is why I brought up the points about how the brain works. What we often think is our conscious choice is in fact subconsciously influenced by a whole host of factors. So to answer your question, who gets to do the choosing? Well I think the real answer is "it depends ..."
 
Its a good question and often one with a very complex answer. This is why I brought up the points about how the brain works. What we often think is our conscious choice is in fact subconsciously influenced by a whole host of factors. So to answer your question, who gets to do the choosing? Well I think the real answer is "it depends ..."

Regardless of how the brain works, I am finding it hard to think of a scenario where I would consider it right for one adult to make a choice for another adult.
 
Regardless of how the brain works, I am finding it hard to think of a scenario where I would consider it right for one adult to make a choice for another adult.

The simple fact is that because of the points I brought up, you do every single day, whether through limiting their choices, changing their circumstances, influencing them, or any number of interactions. Every single action you take ripples through society and has these effects. This is why the larger fabric has to be addressed and libertarian solutions are often inadequate.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact is that because of the points I brought up, you do every single day, whether through limiting their choices, changing their circumstances, influencing them, or any number of interactions. Every single action you take ripples through society and has these effects. This is why the larger fabric has to be addressed and libertarian solutions are often inadequate.
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.

I may not be expressing myself properly. I am not talking about writing a catchy jingle and influencing someone to buy a particular brand of soap. I am referring to a situation where a person decides some course of action, say X, and I say, "No, you will do Y." That's what I mean by making a choice for someone else.
 
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.

I may not be expressing myself properly. I am not talking about writing a catchy jingle and influencing someone to buy a particular brand of soap. I am referring to a situation where a person decides some course of action, say X, and I say, "No, you will do Y." That's what I mean by making a choice for someone else.

You are expressing yourself properly, but your philosophy is just limited in what it considers. Which is one of the reasons it is often inaccurate in predicting human behavior, the results of policies, and would end up in disaster and suffering if ever truly implemented.
 
Last edited:
You are expressing yourself properly, but your philosophy is just limited in what it considers. Which is one of the reasons it is often inaccurate in predicting human behavior, the results of policies, and would end up in disaster and suffering if ever truly implemented.

So you can envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" How, in your philosophy, does person A acquire this right to make decisions for person B?
 
So you can envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" How, in your philosophy, does person A acquire this right to make decisions for person B?

No, I am smart enough to know it happens anyway whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.
 
No, I am smart enough to know it happens anyway whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

I don't understand your response. When you say no, are you saying that you can't envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" Or are you saying that it's not right but that you know it happens anyway?
 
I can buy that. There is no rationality to my belief that it is wrong to hurt other people. I simply believe it because I believe it to be right.

And that's fine, that's enlightened self-interest, one of the most basic social standards that most people embrace. It comes from hundreds of thousands of years of social evolution.

I don't think that one can leave the question unanswered. Either the individual is deciding, directing, and controlling himself, or someone else is.

I didn't leave it unanswered, I said that the answer was "nobody". Nobody owns you.
 
Regardless of how the brain works, I am finding it hard to think of a scenario where I would consider it right for one adult to make a choice for another adult.

"No, you are not going to rape that unwilling woman."

There you go.
 
I don't understand your response. When you say no, are you saying that you can't envision a scenario where it would be right for one adult to say to another, "No, you're not doing X; you're going to do Y?" Or are you saying that it's not right but that you know it happens anyway?

You can (do the envisioning of the answer being one or the other in absolutes), due to the limited scope in which you choose to consider the question. I view my expanded scope as more accurate and my scope does not yield simple answers like yours does.

This all goes back to my points about human interaction, brain function, etc. I suspect we are as not free in our personalities as many others here think we are. In other words, I am more nature than most in the nature vs nurture debate. There is a lot about our very selves we have no real control over, thus its not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us.
 
Last edited:
"No, you are not going to rape that unwilling woman."

There you go.

I agree, it would be wrong for the rapist to make such a decision for the woman. It is the woman's choice to decide with whom she wishes to have sex, and the rapist has no right to violently override her choice.
 
You can (do the envisioning of the answer being one or the other in absolutes), due to the limited scope in which you choose to consider the question. I view my expanded scope as more accurate and my scope does not yield simple answers like yours does.

This all goes back to my points about human interaction, brain function, etc. I suspect we are as not free in our personalities as many others here think we are. In other words, I am more nature than most in the nature vs nurture debate. There is a lot about our very selves we have no real control over, thus its not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us.

I agree with you that it is not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking whether you think it's right for one person to forcibly override the choice of another person? It's a question about ethics.
 
I agree with you that it is not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking whether you think it's right for one person to forcibly override the choice of another person? It's a question about ethics.

so you seek to limit the question so fundamentally that you only regard the scope that your philosophy covers?
 
I don't agree with you that influencing someone is the same as making a choice for someone.

I may not be expressing myself properly. I am not talking about writing a catchy jingle and influencing someone to buy a particular brand of soap. I am referring to a situation where a person decides some course of action, say X, and I say, "No, you will do Y." That's what I mean by making a choice for someone else.

Leading and following is a part of our species' nature.

We casually accept subordinate positions all the time.

Perhaps the difficulty is in perspective.

Perhaps its not "possession" but the right to compel or deny.

As a kid, reading college level by sixth grade, I frequently encountered referrent problems.

An event that seriously colored my life was the first time I saw the "Question Authority" tee shirt.

Rather than ask questions of those in authority, I questioned the concept of authority itself.

"Why does anyone else have the right to tell you what you can and can't do?" Was a question that caused much adult squirming. Some variation of "just because" or "that's the way the world is" was pretty standard, and while kinda true, wasn't an answer to the question.

After digging and looking and doing that semester of civics and the Constitution in 7th grade I came to the conclusion that at its heart, authority derives from the ABILITY to compel or deny. Force.

The Founders take was the force is necessary but should be wielded collectively rather than by one or a few. Not a perfect solution, but it trundles along.

I think our govt has "gone rogue", is no longer working in the best interests of everbody together but FOR the interests of everybodies little groups instead.
 
It's an ethical premise, not a fact. It can't be proven or dis-proven. It is a matter of one's beliefs.

You either believe that ownership (the right to decide, to direct, to control) of a human person is vested in the person himself, or you believe that it is vested in some other person(s).
To decide or direct IS to control - and I still don't see what ownership has to do with it unless you want a method to transfer that control to someone else. Since we seem to agree that control can only reside in the person him/herself, adding ownership into the mix is superfluous.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you that it is not always a black or white question as to what is controlling us. But that's not what I am asking. I am asking whether you think it's right for one person to forcibly override the choice of another person? It's a question about ethics.
Using your outlook:

If one person tried to kill another I would do everything in my power to override that choice.
I would also consider that override to be very much a correct action.
 
Using your outlook:

If one person tried to kill another I would do everything in my power to override that choice.
I would also consider that override to be very much a correct action.
Agreed, if A wants to go on living, and B decides to override that choice by killing him, then B is controlling A. B is violating A's self-ownership.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough.

I wish I could give you a straighter answer, but I am unable, in my own mind, to limit it to the scope of your questions and real world concerns often have to override the theoretical we are discussing here as well. Sometimes an action that fails this test ends up being good in its results (assuming the good outweighs the harm) and sometimes it doesn't matter how good the results will be if the course of action required is bad enough.

In my mind, I assign weights of good and evil to everything and try to do the most good possible on balance since no action is ever perfectly good or perfectly evil. However, there are some lines I am also just plain not willing to cross no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, if A wants to go on living, and B decides to override that choice by killing him, then B is controlling A. B is violating A's self-ownership.
Did you not see the third person in the example?

Or did you ignore the third person on purpose?



And it's still not ownership. Nice try.
 
Last edited:
Did you not see the third person in the example?

Or did you ignore the third person on purpose?



And it's still not ownership. Nice try.

Either person A or person C would be justified in stopping B from interfering with A's choice to live.

As I've said before, I don't care if it is called ownership or simply the ability to make one's own choices.
 
Either person A or person C would be justified in stopping B from interfering with A's choice to live.

As I've said before, I don't care if it is called ownership or simply the ability to make one's own choices.

And if neither A nor C CAN stop B...?
 
Back
Top Bottom