Do you own your body?

[PAB]

The Body as material commodity ....

The issue of self ownership seems to be massively open to debate, more so then i had realised before attending a public lecture (link given below) at the LSE. [ my own position changed widely back and forth on this issue...ending in 'all balls up in the air']

to avoid rambling:
- the consideration of what we are saying e,g ' MY Body' in comparison to 'MY Child'
- The perspective of secularisation 'the soulless individual'
-Selling and Renting of the body (prostitution, organ donors, general labour. etc)
- the socio-economic context: neo liberalism, capitalism and globalisation
-the subject of YOU, the embodied human being that it isn't all just the brain (e.g skin colour and gender effect the subjectivity of individual consciousness)
- ethics: what would it mean to have a market in bodies? inequality in capitalism 'dog eat dog' and competition etc
- A subject case- http://www.lawnix.com/cases/moore-regents-california.html


This lecture is enlightening, and this is going to be a issue of greater complexity regards the increase in bio-genetic technologies :

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20100929_1830_bodiesAsPossessionsAndObjects.mp3

 

[lrkun]

The Body as material commodity ....

The issue of self ownership seems to be massively open to debate, more so then i had realised before attending a public lecture (link given below) at the LSE. [ my own position changed widely back and forth on this issue...ending in 'all balls up in the air']

to avoid rambling:
- the consideration of what we are saying e,g ' MY Body' in comparison to 'MY Child'
- The perspective of secularisation 'the soulless individual'
-Selling and Renting of the body (prostitution, organ donors, general labour. etc)
- the socio-economic context: neo liberalism, capitalism and globalisation
-the subject of YOU, the embodied human being that it isn't all just the brain (e.g skin colour and gender effect the subjectivity of individual consciousness)
- ethics: what would it mean to have a market in bodies? inequality in capitalism 'dog eat dog' and competition etc
- A subject case- http://www.lawnix.com/cases/moore-regents-california.html


This lecture is enlightening, and this is going to be a issue of greater complexity regards the increase in bio-genetic technologies :

http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20100929_1830_bodiesAsPossessionsAndObjects.mp3

That case digest is sweet.

According to the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, A claim for conversion does not lie for the use of a plaintiff's bodily tissue in medical research without his knowledge or consent. Under the duty to obtain informed consent, a doctor must disclose his intent in using a patient for research and economic gain.

What is conversion?

A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another.

I'd like to believe I have full ownership of my body, however, I really don't know. Thanks for bringing this topic up.

 

[Giliell]

I think we own our bodies and have a right to it.
At the same time I think that the law should protect the body even from its "owner"
That sounds like a contradiction, but I will try to explain.
History and sociology teach us that quite a lot of things are very, very dangerous and harmful, especially in the workfield. Studies show, that people are willing to take more risks when the economy goes bad, jobs are scarce and money thin. The worker is always in the weaker position. He needs the money for survival while the employer doesn't need him personally.
Therefore I think that work-safety regulation lies within government control (or public control)
So you can't make a legal contract to renounce your safety at work.

Same goes for organ donation. The risk that people do it out of economic necessity is far too big. So I don't think you have the right to sell your kidney, but I do think you have the right to donate it to your kid.

Last point would be bio-research: No patents on life. A patient must always give his consent and must be allowed to withdraw it so his cells/tissue/genes connot be used for new research. I think that regulations should be in place to protect research as well: If you've given your informed consent for a specific project, you're bound.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I would go on to say that we own our body, not in the sense that we own our house or our computer, but in the sense that we own our thoughts or our mind. But simply because we have ownership of our body does not mean we would be able to fully control how or until when it will function.

Then again, you can consider this analogous to owning a computer. While we use the computer for various purposes, we do not fully control how the computer works and we cannot confidently predict or preselect the date on which its hardware will fail.

The difference between saying MY body and MY child is evident when you consider that your body is merely an object, a biological machine in your possession for you to use and be YOU (if you get what I mean). Hence the "MY" in MY body is representative of your ownership of your body, similar to saying MY computer.

Whereas, your child is another human being (not an object owned and used by you) and the "MY" in MY child is representative of the relationship you have with the person you refer to as your child. Similarly, saying MY mother does not mean you own your mother, it merely represents the relationship you have with the person you referred to.

What are the reasons one would put forth to suggest that we do not own our body? If we don't who does? (I hope nobody says "God does," that would be so laughable.) If nobody does, is our body free for use by everybody? (I really don't think so.)

 

[PAB]

I think we own our bodies and have a right to it.
At the same time I think that the law should protect the body even from its "owner"
That sounds like a contradiction, but I will try to explain.
History and sociology teach us that quite a lot of things are very, very dangerous and harmful, especially in the workfield. Studies show, that people are willing to take more risks when the economy goes bad, jobs are scarce and money thin. The worker is always in the weaker position. He needs the money for survival while the employer doesn't need him personally.
Therefore I think that work-safety regulation lies within government control (or public control)
So you can't make a legal contract to renounce your safety at work.

Same goes for organ donation. The risk that people do it out of economic necessity is far too big. So I don't think you have the right to sell your kidney, but I do think you have the right to donate it to your kid.

Last point would be bio-research: No patents on life. A patient must always give his consent and must be allowed to withdraw it so his cells/tissue/genes connot be used for new research. I think that regulations should be in place to protect research as well: If you've given your informed consent for a specific project, you're bound.

I agree.
However there are those who will argue that because you own your body and have a right to it, that you have the right to sell it or rent it. The way i see it is the law wouldn't necessarily be protecting the body from its ''owner'' , but protecting the body from the assimilation (the practice of ideology) into liberal- free market capitalism, protection from the bodies context......i do however have an anti-capitalist bias

 

[PAB]

I would go on to say that we own our body, not in the sense that we own our house or our computer, but in the sense that we own our thoughts or our mind. But simply because we have ownership of our body does not mean we would be able to fully control how or until when it will function.

Then again, you can consider this analogous to owning a computer. While we use the computer for various purposes, we do not fully control how the computer works and we cannot confidently predict or preselect the date on which its hardware will fail.

The difference between saying MY body and MY child is evident when you consider that your body is merely an object, a biological machine in your possession for you to use and be YOU (if you get what I mean). Hence the "MY" in MY body is representative of your ownership of your body, similar to saying MY computer.

Whereas, your child is another human being (not an object owned and used by you) and the "MY" in MY child is representative of the relationship you have with the person you refer to as your child. Similarly, saying MY mother does not mean you own your mother, it merely represents the relationship you have with the person you referred to.

What are the reasons one would put forth to suggest that we do not own our body? If we don't who does? (I hope nobody says "God does," that would be so laughable.) If nobody does, is our body free for use by everybody? (I really don't think so.)

In the talk there is an interesting bit about the - 'Your Body' and 'You' . That we tend to associate ourselves in a way to the brain as this the centre of thoughts but really our individual subjectivity is integrated with our entire material body e,g social relativity: race / skin colour or ill health e.g due to some inherent organ disorder... which would largely effect the subject of 'You'.

I think there is a huge question (philosophically) of 'the ontology of ownership' which needs to be clarified. Of which the only place I can think to start is Marx.....

And,

What are the reasons one would put forth to suggest that we do not own our body? If we don't who does? (I hope nobody says "God does," that would be so laughable.) If nobody does, is our body free for use by everybody? (I really don't think so.)

Would this suggest that ownership is a signifier for social relations...in terms of ownership of anything is only relevant in terms of social relations between people.?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Perhaps I'm just being obstinate, but there seems to be a certain amount of mind-body dualism implicit in the question... in what sense are you not your body?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You own your body as far as that ownership doesn't interfere with the rights of others, and that ownership should end at the end of brain activity... because, as Anachronous Rex points out, there is an assumed self/body dichotomy that seems unfounded by any evidence. So, every issue that previously existed doesn't suddenly change or disappear by claiming that you own your body. The laws against drug abuse or prostitution are equally valid (or invalid depending on how you see it) whether you claim to be of your body, or in possession of your body.

 

[Andiferous]

Forgive me for not having the time to read the sites thoroughly at the moment.

My opinion:

Unequivocally yes, I believe you own your body. If someone forces your DNA for other purposes without your consent, they ought to be struck down by divine forces. Or something.

The main exception here is when there is another life involved - and pregnancy tends to complicate things. But regardless, as long as you make best efforts, and there is a reasonable balance and effort there, your body should matter most to you in the end (rights and legality) in every case; and anything otherwise is your own altruistic prerogative. Since it's a sketchy business, you really ought to have documentation in controversial cases when there is consent. Or it really could go awry.

I think in understanding this principle, you are more likely to respect the same of other people, and that's really the crucial thing.

Your actions and responsibilities are a separate matter and must be weighed separately by a different scale, and lumping them all together just musses things up. Morality of behaviour or intent to hurt others isn't the same as actions on ones' own body. I think this is at the heart of most debates focusing on body. Sex, prostitution, euthanisation - how does it hurt anyone but the one involved, when it has been requested fairly by that individual? Morality is a sketchy business.

Or so is my pedantia.

 

[PAB]

Perhaps I'm just being obstinate, but there seems to be a certain amount of mind-body dualism implicit in the question... in what sense are you not your body?

no, I don't think your being obstinate. If you are your body, does this equate with owning your body?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Perhaps I'm just being obstinate, but there seems to be a certain amount of mind-body dualism implicit in the question... in what sense are you not your body?

no, I don't think your being obstinate. If you are your body, does this equate with owning your body?

Well the question then becomes, "do you own yourself" then doesn't it?

Now admittedly the limitations of English usage sort of force us into the position that you must as it is "your" "self," but if we can allow ourselves to move past that I would have to say that the question as phrased does not make sense.

It would, at the very least, be the first instance I am aware of of the term 'own' being applied to substance not external to the agent in question.


If we decide that it can be so applied, however, then - by my moral intuition - I would have to say no. We belong to more than ourselves. Though I am somewhat reluctant to make any attempt at describing exactly to what extent this is true. I also tend to believe that we are owed some degree of autonomy by our society, though again I am reluctant to elaborate.

If you like we could try to hash this out via mock-debate. I'd be happy to take either position.

 

[impiku]

Self-ownership is a vital concept for deontological libertarianism since the non-aggression principle is derived from it, I like the idea but there is this awkwardness in it. Ownership is defined as follows:,noun 1. the state or fact of being an owner. The concept of ownership sets up a dichotomy, an owner and something that is being owned. Isn't "self-ownership" a misnomer since no dichotomy is produced? Certainly the word "ownership" is not used this way. I used to argue with people who were proponents of self-ownership but they almost always resorted to dualism when pushed even though they did not admit it. I'm not too familiar with this concept but I think there is an underlying ontological inconsistency to it.

 

[devilsadvocate]

That's an interesting argument against libertarianistic deontological ethics, but I'm not sure if it holds. While it is true that "Ownership of my own body" seems to imply dualism, there's couple of counter-arguments that come to mind: 1. What if we simply re-worded the claim to say "Ownership of self"? 2. The language used has it's place, because it is thinkable that one wouldn't own his own body, so instead of implying dualism, statement simply means the case when this is not true. 3. Dualism could be, in some sense or other, the correct ontological view.

Just btw, I'm not libertarian, neither deontological or a consequalist one, my reason for not being one is my perceived internal inconsistency in libertarianism. The reason one should be able to own something (and therefore complete rights and control over), is because it is the fruits of one's labour. Now how is this true of humans? My existence certainly isn't the "fruit of my labour" . I understand libertarians have different, and quite good arguments for rights to self, but if the derivation of the rights is not the same as for ownership (which, imo, is the defining character of libertarianism) - and clearly self is a special case - why would we claim same rights that come with ownership automatically? Why plumb them together in the first place? To be consistent with the logic of ownership rights, shouldn't mothers and fathers own their children? Or if there are grandparents still alive, shouldn't they have the ownership of both the parents and their children?

 

[Aught3]

I saw no, ownership of humans is just a concept I reject. No one owns your, or anyone else's, body.

 

[impiku]

That's an interesting argument against libertarianistic deontological ethics, but I'm not sure if it holds. While it is true that "Ownership of my own body" seems to imply dualism, there's couple of counter-arguments that come to mind: 1. What if we simply re-worded the claim to say "Ownership of self"? 2. The language used has it's place, because it is thinkable that one wouldn't own his own body, so instead of implying dualism, statement simply means the case when this is not true. 3. Dualism could be, in some sense or other, the correct ontological view.

Just btw, I'm not libertarian, neither deontological or a consequalist one, my reason for not being one is my perceived internal inconsistency in libertarianism. The reason one should be able to own something (and therefore complete rights and control over), is because it is the fruits of one's labour. Now how is this true of humans? My existence certainly isn't the "fruit of my labour" . I understand libertarians have different, and quite good arguments for rights to self, but if the derivation of the rights is not the same as for ownership (which, imo, is the defining character of libertarianism) - and clearly self is a special case - why would we claim same rights that come with ownership automatically? Why plumb them together in the first place? To be consistent with the logic of ownership rights, shouldn't mothers and fathers own their children? Or if there are grandparents still alive, shouldn't they have the ownership of both the parents and their children?

1. The content of the proposition should not change merely by "re-wording" and changing words is not a counter-argument.
2. It does not solve the problem as it is not substantiating what is being owned and what is owning.
3. If you are resorting to dualism to establish self-ownership, the attempt will fail because you are inevitably going to run into infinite regress; ex. If you believe your body is being owned and your brain is owning it, you are not claiming ownership of your own brain, to claim ownership of your own brain requires invoking another entity but you won't be able to establish ownership of that entity you've invoked.

Consequentialist libertarianism does not suffer from internal inconsistencies discussed here and the labor theory of property which you are describing is incoherent if you deny self-ownership. Natural rights are not derived, they are "self-evident" and considered axiomatic(as far as I know). The parent does not "own" the child, the child has rights. Note, I don't accept deontological libertarianism so i don't embrace everything that is said here.

 

[Nemesiah]

I don't think that it is a mater of you owning your boby as much as you ARE your body, it is not separated, there is no ownership, the table does not own one of its legs its needs it to be a table.

The mind is NOT without a body so you don't own your body you are your body many parts of what make "you" are dispersed through your body, your personality depends on your body, your brain, your sexual organs, your overal health etc... it is not separate.

By this standard then yes, you own your body, there is a debate of at what point it is your body an not an extension of your mother's but without derailing this int an abortion thread lets say that from the moment the cord is cut it is "you" and by those standards you can do with it whatever you want as long as it doesn't hamper the freedom of any one else.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I don't think that it is a mater of you owning your boby as much as you ARE your body, it is not separated, there is no ownership, the table does not own one of its legs its needs it to be a table.

The mind is NOT without a body so you don't own your body you are your body many parts of what make "you" are dispersed through your body, your personality depends on your body, your brain, your sexual organs, your overal health etc... it is not separate.

By this standard then yes, you own your body, there is a debate of at what point it is your body an not an extension of your mother's but without derailing this int an abortion thread lets say that from the moment the cord is cut it is "you" and by those standards you can do with it whatever you want as long as it doesn't hamper the freedom of any one else.

I think you're right. After all, isn't our mind (and aren't we) the collective manifestation of electrical signals traveling through the billions of neurons that compose our brain? Then our mind is (and we are) nothing more than a part of our body.

If we take a computer analogy, an operating system (and all the applications that run through it) is at its basic level nothing more than electrical signals (bits 0 and 1) that run through the computer's hardware (processors, buses, motherboards, etc). Does that mean the OS owns the computer hardware? Nope. The OS is a part of the computer. The computer would be useless without an OS, and our body would be dead without the electrical signals that sweep through our brain.

Also, an OS cannot exist outside the computer except in storage mediums, because it's composed of electrical signals (bits 0 and 1), and electricity is not matter, it's energy. The only reason why it can exist in storage mediums (hard disk, CDs, etc.) is because we are capable of converting these electrical signals to changes in matter, and vice versa. In the same way, our mind cannot exist outside our body because, once again it's composed of electrical signals. So far we have not developed any form of storage medium that can store our mind the same way an OS can be stored in a hard disk.

This is why beliefs such as "we have souls and they leave our bodies taking our memories with them" become ridiculous. Our memories are also electrical signals, and without processors such as brains, these signals are of no use, and without conductors such as neurons, or storage mediums, they simply cannot exist.

Makes any sense?

 

[Andiferous]

That's an interesting argument against libertarianistic deontological ethics, but I'm not sure if it holds. While it is true that "Ownership of my own body" seems to imply dualism, there's couple of counter-arguments that come to mind: 1. What if we simply re-worded the claim to say "Ownership of self"? 2. The language used has it's place, because it is thinkable that one wouldn't own his own body, so instead of implying dualism, statement simply means the case when this is not true. 3. Dualism could be, in some sense or other, the correct ontological view.

Just btw, I'm not libertarian, neither deontological or a consequalist one, my reason for not being one is my perceived internal inconsistency in libertarianism. The reason one should be able to own something (and therefore complete rights and control over), is because it is the fruits of one's labour. Now how is this true of humans? My existence certainly isn't the "fruit of my labour" . I understand libertarians have different, and quite good arguments for rights to self, but if the derivation of the rights is not the same as for ownership (which, imo, is the defining character of libertarianism) - and clearly self is a special case - why would we claim same rights that come with ownership automatically? Why plumb them together in the first place? To be consistent with the logic of ownership rights, shouldn't mothers and fathers own their children? Or if there are grandparents still alive, shouldn't they have the ownership of both the parents and their children?

Impiku: If you are to believe your body always represents your body's own interests, then how can one explain sickness or pregnancy? If ones' mind was always so closely aligned with ones' body's interests, hopefully a person would never get sick at all. In pregnancy, mothers' bodies are hard-wired to sacrifice everything to their budding offspring, and not necessarily with the mother's consent or for her better health.

Perhaps as said, infinite regress. Call it a dualism if you must, but don't invoke the soul where it isn't implied. If you and your body were so perfectly in sync, a person should be able to will his or her body to better health.

 

[impiku]

Impiku: If you are to believe your body always represents your body's own interests, then how can one explain sickness or pregnancy? If ones' mind was always so closely aligned with ones' body's interests, hopefully a person would never get sick at all. In pregnancy, mothers' bodies are hard-wired to sacrifice everything to their budding offspring, and not necessarily with the mother's consent or for her better health.

How you ground the concept of ownership and your interest in protecting your property is a different issue. Sure, you need to establish ownership when you want to protect your property, but this is not what is discussed here. The question is whether this form of "ownership of self" is coherent. Why do some people let their property damaged? You tell me, carelessness, lacking interest to protect your property, etc. What exactly is the point of your critique?

Perhaps as said, infinite regress. Call it a dualism if you must, but don't invoke the soul where it isn't implied. If you and your body were so perfectly in sync, a person should be able to will his or her body to better health.

You will end up invoking soul or whatever entity as your last resort or concede that self-ownership is incoherent. Yes, I can clean my house, your point?
You are either setting up a strawman or you're lacking even the wikipedia understanding of the matter.

 

[Andiferous]

Impiku: If you are to believe your body always represents your body's own interests, then how can one explain sickness or pregnancy? If ones' mind was always so closely aligned with ones' body's interests, hopefully a person would never get sick at all. In pregnancy, mothers' bodies are hard-wired to sacrifice everything to their budding offspring, and not necessarily with the mother's consent or for her better health.

How you ground the concept of ownership and your interest in protecting your property is a different issue. Sure, you need to establish ownership when you want to protect your property, but this is not what is discussed here. The question is whether this form of "ownership of self" is coherent. Why do some people let their property damaged? You tell me, carelessness, lacking interest to protect your property, etc. What exactly is the point of your critique?

Perhaps as said, infinite regress. Call it a dualism if you must, but don't invoke the soul where it isn't implied. If you and your body were so perfectly in sync, a person should be able to will his or her body to better health.

You will end up invoking soul or whatever entity as your last resort or concede that self-ownership is incoherent. Yes, I can clean my house, your point?
You are either setting up a strawman or you're lacking even the wikipedia understanding of the matter.

If my interpretation is in error but easily addressed, perhaps a more coherent answer might be more usefull than accusations of wiki abuse. :roll:

No, I don't have a philosophy degree, but I've enjoyed it immensely and dabbled here and there. Not that it really matters.

That said, I've never ever used "strawman" in a philosophy essay.