Three Refutations of Self-Ownership

[Aaron]

Please critique freely.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #1 (With No Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were the same – i.e. if one and one’s body were one and the same thing – then A and B would both own and be owned.
4. Ownership implies an ability to control, direct, dominate, dispose of, defend, manage, and rent a thing.
5. If A and B were the same, then A would be controlling B, and B would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
6. Therefore, if A and B are the same, then self-ownership is an oxymoron.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #2 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. It is immoral and unjust to claim ownership of a living human body.
5. Therefore, self-ownership is immoral and unjust.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #3 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. If the mind exists outside of the living human body – i.e. if the mind is a separate, non-physical entity – then the mind is intangible, whereas the human body is tangible.
5. It is not possible for a thing without physical tangibility to act upon a thing with physical tangibility.
6. Therefore, self-ownership is metaphysically impossible.

[Tom]

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #1 (With No Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were the same – i.e. if one and one’s body were one and the same thing – then A and B would both own and be owned.
4. Ownership implies an ability to control, direct, dominate, dispose of, defend, manage, and rent a thing.
5. If A and B were the same, then A would be controlling B, and B would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
6. Therefore, if A and B are the same, then self-ownership is an oxymoron.

This makes sense, yes. How can you own yourself? You can't. You are your body.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #2 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. It is immoral and unjust to claim ownership of a living human body.
5. Therefore, self-ownership is immoral and unjust.

This falls down at 4. Who says it's moral and unjust? You? Anarchists? What if I said that I think it's perfectly acceptable to claim ownership to my own body?

It's not really a logical path after 4, it just expresses an opinion. Which obviously is acceptable, if you can prove that claiming ownership of a human body is immoral. But I imagine that would be difficult to achieve.

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. If the mind exists outside of the living human body – i.e. if the mind is a separate, non-physical entity – then the mind is intangible, whereas the human body is tangible.
5. It is not possible for a thing without physical tangibility to act upon a thing with physical tangibility.
6. Therefore, self-ownership is metaphysically impossible.

5 - the issue here is that the mind/will can act on the body; they co-exist quite comfortably. One requires the other. The mind makes itself tangible everytime you move, communicate, pick your nose, etc. At least in my view.

[Aaron]

This falls down at 4. Who says it's moral and unjust? You? Anarchists? What if I said that I think it's perfectly acceptable to claim ownership to my own body?

This particular refutation is simply to satisfy the moralists. Each refutation applies to a particular group of people. The first, non-Cartesians. The second, moralists. The third, metaphysicists (or simply physicists).

5 - the issue here is that the mind/will can act on the body; they co-exist quite comfortably. One requires the other. The mind makes itself tangible everytime you move, communicate, pick your nose, etc. At least in my view.

Right -- like me, you reject Cartesian dualism. But, some people don't. This refutation applies to them.

[Killer]

Right -- like me, you reject Cartesian dualism. But, some people don't. This refutation applies to them.

How about just calling them morons and moving on?

[|Y|]

The problem here is that we're differentiating between "consciously existing" and physicality. If they're not one and the same, then it's fine. The soul owns the body. Works fine (and as you note, the whole argument fails at 4).

As I argued in the self defense thread, we are possessors of our body, whether we like it or not. Fact of nature, oh well. So I personally don't see a problem with the "self ownership" point of view.

Indeed, I think it takes a bit of rhetoric to say that we don't "own" ourselves.

[jacobhaller]

It depends what we mean by 'ownership.' It cannot be FLO because we cannot trade it or give it away. It cannot justify FLO for the same reasons.

[Aaron]

It depends what we mean by 'ownership.' It cannot be FLO because we cannot trade it or give it away. It cannot justify FLO for the same reasons.

Exactly. That's the point. Possessing the body and owning the body are too very different things.

[Nexonic]

Another avenue might be biological. If ownership implies control we certainly can't control all aspects of our body. In this sense our body is collectively owned by millions of discrete life forms.

[|Y|]

We're playing word games here.

By some definitions ownership and possession are synonymous.

By others (such as law) they're not.

[Poop]

A is oneself, right?
B is one's body, right?
The issue is whether or not A can own B, right? In other words, the issue is whether or not one owns one's body, right? If that's so, wouldn't it make more sense to call it "Body-ownership", not "Self-ownership" since what you're addressing is whether or not one owns one's body?

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #1 (With No Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were the same – i.e. if one and one’s body were one and the same thing – then A and B would both own and be owned.
4. Ownership implies an ability to control, direct, dominate, dispose of, defend, manage, and rent a thing.
5. If A and B were the same, then A would be controlling B, and B would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
6. Therefore, if A and B are the same, then self-ownership is an oxymoron.

This works only if one considers one's body and oneself one and the same. (Too many "ones," I know )

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #2 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. It is immoral and unjust to claim ownership of a living human body.
5. Therefore, self-ownership is immoral and unjust.

This falls down at 4. Who says it's moral and unjust? You? Anarchists? What if I said that I think it's perfectly acceptable to claim ownership to my own body?

This particular refutation is simply to satisfy the moralists.

And what if my particular morality doesn't rule out owning a living human body?

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #3 (With Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were not the same – i.e. if one’s mind/will and one’s body were not one and the same thing – then A would be a mind/will and B would be a living human body.
4. If the mind exists outside of the living human body – i.e. if the mind is a separate, non-physical entity – then the mind is intangible, whereas the human body is tangible.
5. It is not possible for a thing without physical tangibility to act upon a thing with physical tangibility.
6. Therefore, self-ownership is metaphysically impossible.

If number five is true, than you have refuted all ownership, not just of one's body.

[Aaron]

This works only if one considers one's body and oneself one and the same. (Too many "ones," I know )

Again, that's why I said that it was without consideration of Cartesian dualism.

And what if my particular morality doesn't rule out owning a living human body?

Then it wouldn't satisfy you.

If number five is true, than you have refuted all ownership, not just of one's body.

Not technically.

Thanks for the comments, everybody.

[Poop]

This works only if one considers one's body and oneself one and the same. (Too many "ones," I know )

Again, that's why I said that it was without consideration of Cartesian dualism.

Okay. That was just a comment, not a critique on my part. And now that I have looked up this "Cartesian dualism," what you say makes sense.

If number five is true, than you have refuted all ownership, not just of one's body.

Not technically.

What do you mean? If the mind is an intangible entity, and an intangible entity can't act on, and therefore can't own, a tangible thing, then how can one own anything?

[Aaron]

If number five is true, than you have refuted all ownership, not just of one's body.

Not technically.

What do you mean? If the mind is an intangible entity, and an intangible entity can't act on, and therefore can't own, a tangible thing, then how can one own anything?[/quote]

It works the way you say it works if you accept Cartesian dualism. If you deny such dualism, then it's simply you, a tangible thing, owning something else, also a tangible thing. This is where refutation #1 comes in, insofar as self-ownership is concerned. For other kinds of ownership, there are other logical refutations -- it just depends on from where you philosophically derive ownership (labor, desert, first occupancy, etc.).

[selylindi]

Please critique freely.

A Refutation of Self-Ownership #1 (With No Consideration of Cartesian Dualism)

1. Ownership requires a thing A that owns and a thing B that is owned.
2. Self-ownership requires that one A owns one’s body B.
3. If A and B were the same – i.e. if one and one’s body were one and the same thing – then A and B would both own and be owned.
4. Ownership implies an ability to control, direct, dominate, dispose of, defend, manage, and rent a thing.
5. If A and B were the same, then A would be controlling B, and B would be controlling A, and so forth, ad absurdum, so that true ownership would not really exist.
6. Therefore, if A and B are the same, then self-ownership is an oxymoron.

Step 5 appears invalid. If A=B, then A would be controlling A. What's wrong with that? It sounds vagely like a homeostatic process, which is certainly a big part of what we are.

[Anarchological]

Leslie Gore- "You Don't Own Me" Live
1 min 48 sec - Jul 10, 2006
www.youtube.com