- Capitalism and Alternatives -

banana splits

Posted by: Copenhagen ( Morrison Hotel, Netherlands ) on April 22, 1999 at 14:56:25:

In Reply to: belonging to you posted by Gee on April 21, 1999 at 16:36:37:

: : 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?

I think on the face of it, your life is in the hands of the legislators to do as they please. Laws by their very nature regulate the actions that we are able to take. I am certainly NOT free to take my own life, given that it is against the law. It is only within the boundaries that are crearted by the law that we have scope for autonomous action.

: : 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.

But if somehting is property it follows that one may deal with it in an economic sense. Hence if i was to sell myself to you i would no longer be the owner on myself...(but as i have said this is not possible).

: : 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.

Certainly you are free do do as you wish, within the boundaries of the law. Perhaps i could concede that life 'belongs' to a person, but that is a far cry from calling the life of a person the 'property' of that person.

: : 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.

Well, the principle of utility that Mill annointed was the famous 'harm principle': You are free to do as you wish as long as it does not harm others...i suspect that denying someone a right to life would constitute 'harm'.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup