: Well, i do not think that is really so Gee. Property is a creation of law, and the law does not recognise dealings in human property. Indeed the law does not recognise that humans are property in any meaningful sense.
You realize I am talking about your own body, that you have the freedom to do what you like to your own body? That is not an area for law to revoke or accept. Your right to your own life is not at the behest of legislators. Or do you think it is?
: On the basis of morality, i see no element of 'property' arising. Indeed as i have said earlier the notion that human being are property
*their own* property. This specifically implies that other peole may not dispose of you as they see fit. even given the bizarre possobility that you may wish to become enslaved/owned I cannot see it happening.
: The moral basis against setting aflame arises due to an innate value that morality attatches to human life (being good in itself).
And your life belongs to.....you.
: Social utility involves the notion of what is best for the majority, a sort of moral calulus. That is all, it requires no further reference to notions of property to act as a justification
Hence it is not a proper means to applying morality, because in some circumstances it can deny a person their right to life.