Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

Is a computer a person, in your opinion? If not, why not? And why didn't you address the last point I made about neurological/conscious autonomy?

No, it isn't: that's why your definition is bullshit. It is not a person because it is not "an entity recognised by law as separate and independent, withlegal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law". I ignored your other point because it's entirely and completely unconnected to the point. You don't mention autonomy in your definition of "person" - only consciousness.

Wait, which part of this denies computers the ability to be considered by law as persons?

[Arkolon]

Sociobiology wanted to know whether or not I had any reasoning for giving life objective value, which is, apparently, some sort of requirement for human morality, or something. It was subtopical.

it was required for your claim to absolute morality. which is the foundation to your entire argument.
I'm following your house of cards down to the ones at the foundation and finding every one to be an unfounded assumption.

Morality and justice are arguably different, but we can lump them into one if you want.

I still don't see how attributing life objective value is required for the "absolute morality" I put forward.

[Arkolon]

No one is talking about morality here.

except Arklon who is justifying self ownership by absolutes of right and wrong.

They are in fact principles of justice, not principles in morality.

[Arkolon]

Most of philosophy and courses therein aren't exactly supposed to help your life on a daily basis. Philosophy is the analysis of hypotheses, if you want, and the modern world isn't a hypothesis.

Granted, I suppose, but we still have to connect them back to out world somewhere if we want to make any use out of them, even if it is just applying a derived moral.

You can build political ideologies from philosophy, and that's about as close to the real world you can get.

I think there's been a misunderstanding. First of all, there is no such thing as a "right to an education", precisely because of the reason you just gave. Rights always exist, whether you're in the Roman Empire, 1700s Brazil or planting a flag on the moon. Rights can be guaranteed by a state, but they cannot be granted by a state, because that would imply that a state has the equal power to take this right away, which makes this "right" nothing but a mere legal privilege.

A right to an education is a positive right, otherwise known as a legal privilege. Natural rights, however, are negative rights. All negative rights are natural rights and all natural rights are negative rights. A positive right implies action (you have to do something to get it) but a negative right implies inaction (doing something would go against it). For instance, you could say there is a right to freedom from coercion, or a right to individual liberty, freedom of speech and expression, a right to life, even. The state can assure these things, but it cannot grant them. After all, you are essentially born with these things in the first place (life and liberty). Taking it away clearly constitutes some sort of appropriation of sorts, does it not? Killing you would be a transgression of your rights, no?

If you want to read on, positive rights are sometimes called "claim rights" by some authors, and negative rights "liberty rights".

Ah, fair enough. But I find those rights equally insubstantial - your "right to life" doesn't prevent your death. Your right to free speech wouldn't keep duct tape off of your mouth.

Well, it wouldn't physically prevent your death or physically remove duct tape from your mouth, but having a right means that contradicting that right is in fact a wrong. You having a right to life, me taking your life would be a contradiction of your rights, making the action a wrong. You having a right to freedom of speech, me sealing your mouth shut (or more applicably me censoring and suppressing your thoughts and ideas) would also be a contradiction of rights, making the action a wrong.

It's a pretty legal fiction, nothing more. Not that that's insubstantial, since most modern law is like that, but there's nothing particularly natural about enshrining it.

It's a basis for justice and morality, but yes, it remains an artificial construct.

[Arkolon]

There is no such thing as "society." It is an arbitrary, human made concept of it's own self organization.

Being arbitrary and artificial doesn't make it nonexistent. Language is arbitrary and artificial, yet it obviously exists. "Society" refers to that very self-organization, and its products.

Society cannot own; we can therefore not be owned by society.

[Conscentia]

A reply was promised, but was absent.

The man is busy. Don't be snarky

I wasn't being snarky. He did say "tomorrow", and 2 days passed after that.

[The Liberated Territories]

There is no such thing as "society." It is an arbitrary, human made concept of it's own self organization.

Being arbitrary and artificial doesn't make it nonexistent. Language is arbitrary and artificial, yet it obviously exists. "Society" refers to that very self-organization, and its products.

But I am directly challenging the idea that man somehow belong's to "society." "Society" however is not a physical entity but an idea, as you compared it to language, as arbitrary and artificial. Yet it "exists" solely because it is an idea, dependent entirely on its status as an idea in question, malleable. Neither can we suppose that the idea of society is found in nature, nothing is granted from the "divine" or "human nature" that verifies the idea of any given society, but rather we find society arising as a result of each and every individual (backtrack to the Cartesian individual) acting in tandem, and only holding water as long as each and every individual participates in it voluntarily.

[Arkolon]

The man is busy. Don't be snarky

I wasn't being snarky. He did say "tomorrow", and 2 days passed after that.

That's true, but I don't get a beep in my pocket every time you post in this thread, so I telling me to post something when I am not checking the posts is ... useless, really. But I digress.

[Svatantra Mulukama]

I am in control of my body, so I fail to see how I don't "own it."

[Conscentia]

I wasn't being snarky. He did say "tomorrow", and 2 days passed after that.

That's true, but I don't get a beep in my pocket every time you post in this thread, so I telling me to post something when I am not checking the posts is ... useless, really. But I digress.

You might have email notifications. NS does have such a feature.

[Conscentia]

I am in control of my body, so I fail to see how I don't "own it."

Physical possession is not the same thing as propertarian ownership.

To demonstrate: "I am in control of this car, so I fail to see how I don't "own it"... who care's if it's stolen, right?"

[Svatantra Mulukama]

I am in control of my body, so I fail to see how I don't "own it."

Physical possession is not the same thing as propertarian ownership.

To demonstrate: "I am in control of this car, so I fail to see how I don't "own it"... who care's if it's stolen, right?"

I see what you mean. However, physically, I possess myself. So, why wouldn't I own myself? I realize it's not propertarian ownership.

[Twilight Imperium]

You can build political ideologies from philosophy, and that's about as close to the real world you can get.

That gets back to the one versus many argument though. If no one else is building their political ideologies from the same philosophies, can they be applied on a large scale? Deriving your own homebrew blend of morality doesn't really work for demonstrating a universal (or at least widely-applicable) set of ethics.

[Arkolon]

That's true, but I don't get a beep in my pocket every time you post in this thread, so I telling me to post something when I am not checking the posts is ... useless, really. But I digress.

You might have email notifications. NS does have such a feature.

What is it, 2004?

[Arkolon]

I am in control of my body, so I fail to see how I don't "own it."

Physical possession is not the same thing as propertarian ownership.

To demonstrate: "I am in control of this car, so I fail to see how I don't "own it"... who care's if it's stolen, right?"

Wouldn't self-ownership be logically in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings-- and by extension, therefore, the principle of justice in transfer of holdings? You are the only one that can have your own consciousness (you are your own consciousness), so how could anyone else, but yourself, own it?

[Arkolon]

You can build political ideologies from philosophy, and that's about as close to the real world you can get.

That gets back to the one versus many argument though. If no one else is building their political ideologies from the same philosophies, can they be applied on a large scale? Deriving your own homebrew blend of morality doesn't really work for demonstrating a universal (or at least widely-applicable) set of ethics.

That's what we're here for, isn't it?

[Twilight Imperium]

That gets back to the one versus many argument though. If no one else is building their political ideologies from the same philosophies, can they be applied on a large scale? Deriving your own homebrew blend of morality doesn't really work for demonstrating a universal (or at least widely-applicable) set of ethics.

That's what we're here for, isn't it?

I thought we were here to demonstrate why self-ownership was valid on that large scale. We kind of already knew that you considered it valid

[Salandriagado]

No, it isn't: that's why your definition is bullshit. It is not a person because it is not "an entity recognised by law as separate and independent, withlegal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law". I ignored your other point because it's entirely and completely unconnected to the point. You don't mention autonomy in your definition of "person" - only consciousness.

Wait, which part of this denies computers the ability to be considered by law as persons?

The part where the law doesn't currently recognise computers as persons. In the future, that may (and certainly should, once we manage AI) change.

[Conscentia]

Physical possession is not the same thing as propertarian ownership.
To demonstrate: "I am in control of this car, so I fail to see how I don't "own it"... who care's if it's stolen, right?"

Wouldn't self-ownership be logically in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition of holdings-- and by extension, therefore, the principle of justice in transfer of holdings? You are the only one that can have your own consciousness (you are your own consciousness), so how could anyone else, but yourself, own it?

I don't accept "finder's keepers" as justice.

[Conscentia]

The natural state of things - ie. how things are in the absence of artificiality.

Ah, see, no, that's not what a state of nature is. Put bluntly, a state of nature is a collection of individuals (without being a society) that live without the existence of a political state or polity. In the state of nature, a hypothetical scenario, there is no state, and its use is primordially for justifying the existence and role of government. States of nature very much do still have artificial social constructs, including property, making the state of nature, naturally, an "artificial world" I was talking about.

Why not just say "stateless society" then? Why use odd esoteric language?

No, it isn't. Anarchy is the absence of state.

And the state is a collection or centralisation of legal institutions into one big, overarching legal institution. In a state of nature, what you do on your own property is up to you, and no one can tell you off for it because it is, well, yours, and you govern it. If murder was to occur on your property in a state of nature, you would have the right to determine who is, and how they are to be, punished for what they did. When you succumb to the existence of a formal state, however, you delegate this task to a group of bureaucrats who live somewhere else. This group of bureaucrats is the state. You have given them some of your freedoms and some of your rights in exchange for their services.

In a stateless society, my claim is as legitimate as yours. There is only common property.

"a" is not the coefficient of c and w. It cannot be. It isn't a quantity.
aw and ac are abbreviations - they have no coefficient.

Have bx and bd, then, just so you don't confuse them as abbreviations.

Confuse them as abbreviations?! They are abbreviations; "aw" stands for "artificial world", "ac" stands for "artificial concept".

[Zottistan]

Being arbitrary and artificial doesn't make it nonexistent. Language is arbitrary and artificial, yet it obviously exists. "Society" refers to that very self-organization, and its products.

Society cannot own; we can therefore not be owned by society.

Which is fine and good, but society still exists.

Being arbitrary and artificial doesn't make it nonexistent. Language is arbitrary and artificial, yet it obviously exists. "Society" refers to that very self-organization, and its products.

But I am directly challenging the idea that man somehow belong's to "society." "Society" however is not a physical entity but an idea, as you compared it to language, as arbitrary and artificial. Yet it "exists" solely because it is an idea, dependent entirely on its status as an idea in question, malleable.

The same could be said for the idea of property.
Society is the relationship between one group of people and others. Property is the relationship between a person and a thing, or another person.

Neither can we suppose that the idea of society is found in nature,

Everything that occurs is found in nature. If the idea of society was against the nature of the people who created it, they wouldn't have created it.

nothing is granted from the "divine" or "human nature" that verifies the idea of any given society, but rather we find society arising as a result of each and every individual (backtrack to the Cartesian individual) acting in tandem, and only holding water as long as each and every individual participates in it voluntarily.

Why does it not hold water if it's involuntary?

[Sociobiology]

except Arklon who is justifying self ownership by absolutes of right and wrong.

They are in fact principles of justice, not principles in morality.

so you think you have objective justice now?
how is that better?

[Sociobiology]

An artificial concept exists in an artificial world.

ac = aw
c = w

A concept exists in the world.

so wizards really exist because harry potter.

[Sociobiology]

it was required for your claim to absolute morality. which is the foundation to your entire argument.
I'm following your house of cards down to the ones at the foundation and finding every one to be an unfounded assumption.

Morality and justice are arguably different, but we can lump them into one if you want.

they both however share the characteristic of being subjective.

I still don't see how attributing life objective value is required for the "absolute morality" I put forward.

it isn't, you need to demonstrate objective/absolute morality. life having value was your attempt.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I do not belong to myself. I exist within myself. To own one self implies a form of dualism. Which is dumb.