Self-ownership

[Conscentia]

the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it [the existence of the human conscience] makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.

We are good for our survival, therefore our being makes complete sense. [sic]

You're going to have to rewrite this, then, because you make no sense in it.

I make complete sense. I have no idea how you keep failing to understand.
What I wrote is not at all equal to the red.

Given that the human conscience helps the species to survive, it would make sense that evolution selects in favour of having a conscience.

They'd take revenge because they feel that they've been wronged by my taking of something they value.

I value my friend's bike, but if it got stolen I wouldn't beat you up for stealing it. It's not mine. The bike is my friend's. It belongs to them. By stealing it you are doing wrong by taking what is not yours. It's as simple as that.

The bike is not inherently theirs. It's theirs within the law, and my actions would be illegal but that doesn't make the actions inherently "wrong". It could be mean, or unfair, or whatever, but that doesn't make it inherently "wrong". It just makes it upsetting - at least to those who even care.

In the absence of law, that book is not theirs. They may physically possess it. They may be using it. They may value it for whatever reason. Doesn't mean it's inherently theirs. I could take it. Of-coarse, if they want it, they can retaliate to maintain access to it.

There is no such thing as the absence of law. There is the absence of a state, which you would call a "formal" legal institution, but there is never the absence of legal hierarchies and codes of conduct in any society.

If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.

There is such a thing as the absence of law. There was no law for approximately 99.99% of the universe's history.
Even humans can exist in the absence of law. Honour codes pre-date legal codes. And where events lead to a society's collapse, one can find anomie.

On the contrary, by recognising what is artificial, I can judge their utility more objectively. That is very useful.
Nihilism is not about pretending that social constructs do not exist - it's about recognising that they are not inherent.

No, everyone recognises what is artificial and what is not. Social constructs don't exist in a vacuum. Social constructs exist in social environments. Conveniently, so do you. Nihilism is very much a rejection of social institutions in favour of apathy and egoism. He who can overcome their nihilist phase very much is the Surhomme. All ex-nihilists integrate what they saw into what they now see: artificiality, social constructs, objectivity vs. subjectivity, moral relativism, but have built on that to form an ethical base bigger than that. Nihilism is, figuratively, the foundations of a house.And you have to build over the foundations in order to live in the house.

Some people do not recognise what is artificial. They believe that purpose is inherent, or that things can be inherently immoral.

Nihilism does not inherently favour apathy or egoism. If you use nihilism to justify egoism or apathy, that speaks more about you than nihilism.
Nihilism is not inherently the rejection of social institutions. It is a philosophy of scepticism that holds that all values are baseless - that there are is nothing that has inherent, absolute, or objective value.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me.

I take it I'm not far off, in any case.

Why?

[Conscentia]

Children are irrelevant - they lack the ability to legally consent.

Says who? The age of legal consent can be 25, 18, 15, 12, anything in between or even for all humans. This is subjective. It's also a sorites: at which point does a child growing up become able to legally consent? What is the real difference between someone who is 18 tomorrow and someone who turned 18 yesterday? One can legally consent, and other other can't, but why?

Says the law.
I'm not going argue about what the age of consent should be, I'm just saying that it exists.

Animals aren't part of human society.

Here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing IQ points at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. This is another sorites.

This has nothing to do with intelligence.
Non-humans are not a part of a human superorganism.

Non-citizens aren't part of the specific society in question.

I live in Luxembourg, which has the strange phenomenon where over (or just around) 50% of residents are non-citizens. Only about 30% of residents do vote. That means that, in a room of ten people, three have to vote between themselves how to govern all ten of them. Are you telling me that a) this is fair, but more importantly that b) we, the fifty percent, aren't part of the society? Am I not allowed to, or do I not at all according to you, socially interact with people who are citizens?

Firstly, Luxembourg is not a direct democracy.
Secondly, you missed the point which was that it is hypothetically possible for a society to be the legal institution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_group_(sociology)

This outlines the individualism vs. corporatism argument, and doesn't give me anything useful. It gives me a subjective opinion.

You asked "How small a size can we go?", and the answer is the first sentence:

A corporate group is a general term that describes two or more individuals

[Conscentia]

Biology is not law. Your ability to externalise entropy does not entitle you property at all. It is completely irrelevant.

Your consciousness does.

You said nothing about consciousness.
And neurological functions are relevant to ownership how?

Yes, and you conceded that ownership was part of law and went onto this discussion questioning law itself.

Where?

I while ago, I don't remember the page.

[Twilight Imperium]

That still makes them legal institutions: if they openly accept the law they write up with the second legal institution (the second person), then they abide by that law but that doesn't strip them of their self-government. Two governments can sign a free trade agreement, and both governments are still governments. No super-authority has been created.

There's a big difference between a free trade agreement and complete overlap of legal codes, though. As for the first part, it's true that they haven't lost as much of their self-determination within the system, but chances are there'll be provisions they're following that didn't come from them. Then if you add four more people it gets further diluted, and so on.

Example: Bill and Ted crash their hot tub into a lush, tropical island. They eventually settle in and decide to form a body of laws, because they're really bored and they drank the last of the booze last week. Bill suggests outlining provisions for what fruits they should plant, and which ones they should avoid, so they can focus on only the good fruits and such. Bill's intention is to stake out a plot of land for pineapples and coconuts, in case they find more rum someday. Ted agrees, but only if they also decide to ban bananas and furthermore remove the existing banana trees on the island. Ted's hated bananas since he was exposed to a lot of bad banana-based metaphors on NationStates a while back, and isn't that wild about pina coladas. Bill kind of likes bananas, but he also needs Ted's help to plant and tend to the pina colada grove, so he agrees. Thus a law is crafted with elements of both men's ideas, that both are bound by, and both do things somewhat outside their self-interest to make it.

Or, in a version where Bill is way more attached to bananas, they argue for hours until Ted gets fed up and grabs a torch and starts heading for the banana grove, and Bill caves in his head with a rock. Bill's law victorious, but he still doesn't get to drink any pina coladas.

Now expand the notion to a small village of 350. They try to meet up and discuss their lawmaking this way, but it just ends in shouting, since no one's invented Robert's Rules of Order yet, and everyone's usually drunk a few too many pina coladas. Eventually someone cottons onto the idea of having ten people make their laws instead of just having a football-scrum type debate every time something needs doing. The Ten will talk to the people about what needs and what wants have to be met, and they make the laws. The Ten are now a legal institution, at least until the Bloody Mary Supremacy tribe comes and conquers the Pina Colada People.

There's a difference between dictating law, crafting law, and abiding by law someone else crafted. Legal institutions do one of the first two. And if you don't do one of the first two, you're not a legal institution.

[Arkolon]

Exactly. It avoids all that which it calls "artificial", which is all that is socially constructed and not scientifically or mathematically provable. It is on par with solipsism for uselessness to philosophical progression as a society. Social constructs are real, whether you like it or not. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you sound like someone who's still in school or in university and relies on whatever their teacher says for the manual to life, but a step outside reveals just this much. You cannot avoid social constructs. You cannot dismiss social constructs. Social constructs are the world around you. Nihilism is purposely blinding oneself to society and its products.

I know, we all go through nihilist phases, which is usually more or less at the same time as that part in life where we hate our parents who are SO mean to us, but seriously, you're wasting your time, and you're going to be hugely disappointed if you ever apply for philosophy in whichever facility you currently frequent.

It's worth mentioning that nihilists generally don't care about philosophical progress as a society so much as individuals. It's a philosophy that starts with the individual and works outward, or starts with the fundamental concepts of physical and mathematical science and works upward. It doesn't dismiss social constructs, it just denies them as a valid basis for objective ethics.

So it isn't all that different to the individualism I propose?

If you want insight into applied nihilism, the likes of Nietzsche and Stirner are interesting reads. Nihilism is only life-negating when you deny the fact that you desire.

Half of the people you listed weren't nihilists.

[Zottistan]

It's worth mentioning that nihilists generally don't care about philosophical progress as a society so much as individuals. It's a philosophy that starts with the individual and works outward, or starts with the fundamental concepts of physical and mathematical science and works upward. It doesn't dismiss social constructs, it just denies them as a valid basis for objective ethics.

So it isn't all that different to the individualism I propose?

It can be similar. It generally isn't.

If you want insight into applied nihilism, the likes of Nietzsche and Stirner are interesting reads. Nihilism is only life-negating when you deny the fact that you desire.

Half of the people you listed weren't nihilists.

Whether or not Nietzsche was a nihilist doesn't change the fact that he's fairly informative on the subject.

[Arkolon]

We are good for our survival, therefore our being makes complete sense. [sic]

You're going to have to rewrite this, then, because you make no sense in it.

I make complete sense. I have no idea how you keep failing to understand.
What I wrote is not at all equal to the red.

What I quoted seems to be, and you haven't managed to even begin to demonstrate otherwise.

Given that the human conscience helps the species to survive, it would make sense that evolution selects in favour of having a conscience.

Sociobiology wrote against this, I think.

They'd take revenge because they feel that they've been wronged by my taking of something they value.

I value my friend's bike, but if it got stolen I wouldn't beat you up for stealing it. It's not mine. The bike is my friend's. It belongs to them. By stealing it you are doing wrong by taking what is not yours. It's as simple as that.

The bike is not inherently theirs. It's theirs within the law, and my actions would be illegal but that doesn't make the actions inherently "wrong". It could be mean, or unfair, or whatever, but that doesn't make it inherently "wrong". It just makes it upsetting - at least to those who even care.

In the absence of law, that book is not theirs. They may physically possess it. They may be using it. They may value it for whatever reason. Doesn't mean it's inherently theirs. I could take it. Of-coarse, if they want it, they can retaliate to maintain access to it.

There is no such thing as the absence of law. There is the absence of a state, which you would call a "formal" legal institution, but there is never the absence of legal hierarchies and codes of conduct in any society.

If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.

There is such a thing as the absence of law. There was no law for approximately 99.99% of the universe's history.[/quote]
That means nothing when no social creatures were alive at the time.

Even humans can exist in the absence of law. Honour codes pre-date legal codes. And where events lead to a society's collapse, one can find anomie.

Honour codes are types of legal codes.

No, everyone recognises what is artificial and what is not. Social constructs don't exist in a vacuum. Social constructs exist in social environments. Conveniently, so do you. Nihilism is very much a rejection of social institutions in favour of apathy and egoism. He who can overcome their nihilist phase very much is the Surhomme. All ex-nihilists integrate what they saw into what they now see: artificiality, social constructs, objectivity vs. subjectivity, moral relativism, but have built on that to form an ethical base bigger than that. Nihilism is, figuratively, the foundations of a house.And you have to build over the foundations in order to live in the house.

Some people do not recognise what is artificial. They believe that purpose is inherent, or that things can be inherently immoral.

Good thing that those people aren't here. Unethical does not equal to immoral, first of all, and things can be inherently immoral. Picking the lesser of two evils is still picking an evil.

Nihilism does not inherently favour apathy or egoism. If you use nihilism to justify egoism or apathy, that speaks more about you than nihilism. Nihilism is not inherently the rejection of social institutions. It is a philosophy of scepticism that holds that all values are baseless - that there are is nothing that has inherent, absolute, or objective value.

Nihilism is extreme scepticism. I know it's all semantics at this point, but you sound to be justifying scepticism, not nihilism. Nihilism very much is a doctrine of apathy and egoism. My philosophy teacher put it like so: scepticism holds that all social constructs and values are baseless, as you say, but nihilism is taking it one step further, and putting the self as the centre of the universe, claiming that whatever helps the self is therefore good, because the self is the only inherently true construct in the eyes of a nihilist. It's very much a fringe philosophy that doesn't live up to be taken as seriously as it once was, and anyway I doubt you're justifying nihilism anyway.

[Arkolon]

Says who? The age of legal consent can be 25, 18, 15, 12, anything in between or even for all humans. This is subjective. It's also a sorites: at which point does a child growing up become able to legally consent? What is the real difference between someone who is 18 tomorrow and someone who turned 18 yesterday? One can legally consent, and other other can't, but why?

Says the law.
I'm not going argue about what the age of consent should be, I'm just saying that it exists.

It doesn't inherently exist. It can exist.

Here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing IQ points at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. This is another sorites.

This has nothing to do with intelligence.
Non-humans are not a part of a human superorganism.

Non-humans are often eaten by humans. Take it this way, then: here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing human traits and characteristics at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. An animal has the same elementary human rights as does a human, because both creatures are basically the same.

I live in Luxembourg, which has the strange phenomenon where over (or just around) 50% of residents are non-citizens. Only about 30% of residents do vote. That means that, in a room of ten people, three have to vote between themselves how to govern all ten of them. Are you telling me that a) this is fair, but more importantly that b) we, the fifty percent, aren't part of the society? Am I not allowed to, or do I not at all according to you, socially interact with people who are citizens?

Firstly, Luxembourg is not a direct democracy.

Hardly changes anything, though.

Secondly, you missed the point which was that it is hypothetically possible for a society to be the legal institution.

The society's and the legal institution's circles would be a near-perfect circle in the Venn diagram, but that doesn't make the society any more of a law-crafting institution.

This outlines the individualism vs. corporatism argument, and doesn't give me anything useful. It gives me a subjective opinion.

You asked "How small a size can we go?", and the answer is the first sentence:

A corporate group is a general term that describes two or more individuals

Then this:

Otherwise, a constituent corporation of a society is responsible for the law making.

isn't true, because a society cannot create laws without a legal institution.

[Arkolon]

Your consciousness does.

You said nothing about consciousness.
And neurological functions are relevant to ownership how?

It's always been about consciousness. The conscious is the "mind"; the "person"; the "self". It is relevant to ownership because a mind is needed to own. If you have no mind, you cannot own.

[Conscentia]

I make complete sense. I have no idea how you keep failing to understand.
What I wrote is not at all equal to the red.

What I quoted seems to be, and you haven't managed to even begin to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't understand how it is that you are even misinterpreting it. It's so clear. The line following, which you quote below, is a re-phrasing.

Given that the human conscience helps the species to survive, it would make sense that evolution selects in favour of having a conscience.

Sociobiology wrote against this, I think.

He was being pedantic. The only thing he changes is simply substituting "genes" in place of "species" in my sentence.

If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.

No action is inherently just or unjust. Your principle is baseless.
If you were a millionaire with several homes, and I was a homeless pauper, then I'd definitely consider it acceptable to take one of your homes. Not like you need it. Meanwhile, I do need it, so why shouldn't I take it?

Even humans can exist in the absence of law. Honour codes pre-date legal codes. And where events lead to a society's collapse, one can find anomie.

Honour codes are types of legal codes.

A code of honour differs from a legal code, also socially defined, in that honour remains implicit rather than explicit and objectified.

Some people do not recognise what is artificial. They believe that purpose is inherent, or that things can be inherently immoral.

Good thing that those people aren't here. Unethical does not equal to immoral, first of all, and things can be inherently immoral. Picking the lesser of two evils is still picking an evil.

Er, what? Unethical and immoral are synonyms.

Nihilism does not inherently favour apathy or egoism. If you use nihilism to justify egoism or apathy, that speaks more about you than nihilism. Nihilism is not inherently the rejection of social institutions. It is a philosophy of scepticism that holds that all values are baseless - that there are is nothing that has inherent, absolute, or objective value.

Nihilism is extreme scepticism. I know it's all semantics at this point, but you sound to be justifying scepticism, not nihilism. Nihilism very much is a doctrine of apathy and egoism. My philosophy teacher put it like so: scepticism holds that all social constructs and values are baseless, as you say, but nihilism is taking it one step further, and putting the self as the centre of the universe, claiming that whatever helps the self is therefore good, because the self is the only inherently true construct in the eyes of a nihilist. It's very much a fringe philosophy that doesn't live up to be taken as seriously as it once was, and anyway I doubt you're justifying nihilism anyway.

Your philosophy teacher was a liar, or mistaken, or you misunderstood.
Philosophical scepticism is an approach that requires information to be well supported by evidence.
Nihilism extends to values, reaching the conclusion that they are baseless.
Nihilism has nothing to do with solipsism, egoism, egotism, or narcissism - because, guess what, those are based on arbitrary and artificial values too. If you choose those values after realising that values are baseless, then that speaks to your character and attitude to the world - it says nothing of nihilism.

Also, stop breaking the quote boxes. Information ends up being lost in the process of fixing them.

[Conscentia]

You said nothing about consciousness.
And neurological functions are relevant to ownership how?

It's always been about consciousness. The conscious is the "mind"; the "person"; the "self". It is relevant to ownership because a mind is needed to own. If you have no mind, you cannot own.

If this is about neurological functions, not law, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

Any legal person can own. Not all legal persons are humans. Corporations, which have no mind of their own, can be assigned property.
Additionally, though a conscious person can own, the act of owning is not necessarily inevitable or inherent.

[Conscentia]

Says the law.
I'm not going argue about what the age of consent should be, I'm just saying that it exists.

It doesn't inherently exist. It can exist.

I didn't say that law does inherently exist.

Here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing IQ points at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. This is another sorites.

This has nothing to do with intelligence.
Non-humans are not a part of a human superorganism.

Non-humans are often eaten by humans. Take it this way, then: here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing human traits and characteristics at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. An animal has the same elementary human rights as does a human, because both creatures are basically the same.[/quote]
Stop being irrelevant.

Secondly, you missed the point which was that it is hypothetically possible for a society to be the legal institution.

The society's and the legal institution's circles would be a near-perfect circle in the Venn diagram, but that doesn't make the society any more of a law-crafting institution.

In a hypothetical direct democracy in which all members of the society participate in the crafting of law, how is society not the law-crafting institution?

You asked "How small a size can we go?", and the answer is the first sentence:

Then this:

Otherwise, a constituent corporation of a society is responsible for the law making.

isn't true, because a society cannot create laws without a legal institution.

What?

A legal institution is either society, or a constituent corporation thereof.

[Jello Biafra]

Why would there be no one to create them? Are people going to forget how to do those things?

What would be the point in creating them?

Enjoyment and/or necessity.

[Twilight Imperium]

I think part of the problem here is that we're overdefining things here, if that makes any sense. Ask a man on the street what these concepts are, and his answer will be pretty close to the truth, if not simply the truth.

"What is the law?"

"Rules made by the government."

"Why don't you break the law?"

"You'll get arrested."

"How do you know if you own something?"

"'cause I have it."

*shrug*

[Condy Worshippers]

We may have free will and control over ourselves, but Condunum is everyone's puppet master.

[Haktiva]

I could care less about other people. I don't care whether I live or die so long as I live well and die well too. I only have control over myself, everyone else is beyond my control and beyond my responsibility.

[Sociobiology]

Sociobiology wrote against this, I think.

He was being pedantic. The only thing he changes is simply substituting "genes" in place of "species" in my sentence.

it may not sound like a huge difference to you but it has a huge impact on how people think about evolution and how it functions. evolution is perfectly fine with driving the species extinct for a short term genetic gain.

[Arkolon]

What I quoted seems to be, and you haven't managed to even begin to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't understand how it is that you are even misinterpreting it. It's so clear. The line following, which you quote below, is a re-phrasing shifting of the goal posts.

???

If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.

No action is inherently just or unjust. Your principle is baseless.
If you were a millionaire with several homes, and I was a homeless pauper, then I'd definitely consider it acceptable to take one of your homes. Not like you need it. Meanwhile, I do need it, so why shouldn't I take it?

Because it's not yours? It is under the ownership of someone else? Why shouldn't you rape that good-looking woman, too? You tell yourself you need her body, don't you? Does this justify rape-- it's OK as long as I feel like I need it? Why isn't rape justified, then, if ownership is just a total folly and what's mine isn't actually mine? Where do you draw the line for rape?

Even humans can exist in the absence of law. Honour codes pre-date legal codes. And where events lead to a society's collapse, one can find anomie.

Honour codes are types of legal codes.

A code of honour differs from a legal code, also socially defined, in that honour remains implicit rather than explicit and objectified.[/quote]
They're both legal codes, it's just that one is "formal" and the other is "informal"-- a distinction that only you have yet found useful.

Good thing that those people aren't here. Unethical does not equal to immoral, first of all, and things can be inherently immoral. Picking the lesser of two evils is still picking an evil.

Er, what? Unethical and immoral are synonyms.

Nihilism is extreme scepticism. I know it's all semantics at this point, but you sound to be justifying scepticism, not nihilism. Nihilism very much is a doctrine of apathy and egoism. My philosophy teacher put it like so: scepticism holds that all social constructs and values are baseless, as you say, but nihilism is taking it one step further, and putting the self as the centre of the universe, claiming that whatever helps the self is therefore good, because the self is the only inherently true construct in the eyes of a nihilist. It's very much a fringe philosophy that doesn't live up to be taken as seriously as it once was, and anyway I doubt you're justifying nihilism anyway.

Your philosophy teacher was a liar, or mistaken, or you misunderstood.
Philosophical scepticism is an approach that requires information to be well supported by evidence.
Nihilism extends to values, reaching the conclusion that they are baseless.
Nihilism has nothing to do with solipsism, egoism, egotism, or narcissism - because, guess what, those are based on arbitrary and artificial values too. If you choose those values after realising that values are baseless, then that speaks to your character and attitude to the world - it says nothing of nihilism.

The self isn't an arbitrary and artificial value. Nihilism is intrinsically egoist: it takes the self as the only real value and bases all good on what is good for the self. If I want this, I will take it, because law is a social construct so it doesn't matter, right? If I want to rape this woman, I will, because ownership of the self is a social construct so it doesn't matter, right? If I want to kill that man, I will, because everything supporting his rights to life are social constructs, so whatever I say goes. You cannot be a nihilist and not be an egoist. You can donate whatever you want to charity or help the homeless all you want, and you would gain the trait of altruist, but you would still be a philosophical egoist. You donated to charity because you thought it would be good for people so you made the decision to advance your own goals of self-satisfaction and happiness. You cannot be a nihilist and be anything other than an egoist.

[ q u o t e ]Also, stop breaking the quote boxes. Information ends up being lost in the process of fixing them.[ / q u o t e ]
What? I don't understand.

[Arkolon]

It's always been about consciousness. The conscious is the "mind"; the "person"; the "self". It is relevant to ownership because a mind is needed to own. If you have no mind, you cannot own.

If this is about neurological functions, not law, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

Any legal person can own. Not all legal persons are humans. Corporations, which have no mind of their own, can be assigned property.
Additionally, though a conscious person can own, the act of owning is not necessarily inevitable or inherent.

Corporations are groups of people, and a corporation really is a joint-title between people of certain property. Shareholders are the joint-owners, and the legal personhood of a corporation in terms of ownership bears a close resemblance to how individual people own property, or perhaps share the ownership of certain property. The fact that your consciousness needs your body to be, however, is very much enough proof to justify the inherent and inevitable fact that yes, you own your body, and, as an extension, yourself.

[Conscentia]

[delete]

[Arkolon]

It doesn't inherently exist. It can exist.

I didn't say that law does inherently exist.

Ah, but (in social environments), it does.

Non-humans are often eaten by humans. Take it this way, then: here is an animal, say, a monkey. I'm going to keep throwing human traits and characteristics at it, and when it reaches human status tell me to stop. An animal has the same elementary human rights as does a human, because both creatures are basically the same.

Stop being irrelevant.

I'm not being irrelevant.

The society's and the legal institution's circles would be a near-perfect circle in the Venn diagram, but that doesn't make the society any more of a law-crafting institution.

In a hypothetical direct democracy in which all members of the society participate in the crafting of law, how is society not the law-crafting institution?

All of society would be part of the legal institution. Consider this: at a school, there are 30 classes for seven different years. The school is the society, the student the individual, and the class the legal institution. If the school dropped 29 classes and only kept one year group in the process, the whole of the school would be one class (legal institution). Does that make class S5EN, or whatever, the whole school? Functionally, perhaps. But S5EN would be a class, and not the whole school, unless you took a jump in simplification in the process.

Then this:

isn't true, because a society cannot create laws without a legal institution.

What?

A legal institution is either society

Aha, no, unless you're talking about a hypothetical microsociety of 100-ish people where every single action undertaken by the central authority is submitted to mass referendum and there is no sign of human existence outside of this microsociety-- which has never really been the case on Earth.

or a constituent corporation thereof.

The legal institution is the person, the individual. Law ties constituent corporations together. That is what a state is, and that is also what a state is for: the people resign their freedoms and self-government and pool it all together to make a state, or a central legal authority. Constituent corporations don't have minds, rights, or freedoms. They cannot give up their self-government because they were never self-governing to begin with. Only that which is capable of owning, ie that which has a mind, can be self-governing-- only individuals.

[Conscentia]

This discussion is getting long, so I've combined the three posts into one split into two parts derived of the two longest posts. The 3rd, shortest post was included in the second part.

I don't understand how it is that you are even misinterpreting it. It's so clear. The line following, which you quote below, is a re-phrasing shifting of the goal posts.

???

Your failure to understand a sentence does not mean I've shifted the goal posts.

No action is inherently just or unjust. Your principle is baseless.
If you were a millionaire with several homes, and I was a homeless pauper, then I'd definitely consider it acceptable to take one of your homes. Not like you need it. Meanwhile, I do need it, so why shouldn't I take it?

Because it's not yours? It is under the ownership of someone else? Why shouldn't you rape that good-looking woman, too? You tell yourself you need her body, don't you? Does this justify rape-- it's OK as long as I feel like I need it? Why isn't rape justified, then, if ownership is just a total folly and what's mine isn't actually mine? Where do you draw the line for rape?

So you'd rather the homeless pauper remain homeless, even if it were a bitter winter's night, rather than illegally occupy one of a rich guy's several homes?

Rape is neither inherently justified nor unjustified. Most people don't rape because they don't actually ever want to, not because they follow some ethical philosophy that tells them not to - it's not really a conscious decision for most people. (This goes back to causality, ethology, and psychology.)

I've told you, as a nihilist and determinist, I don't advocate any prescriptivist ethics - I don't draw any arbitrary lines.
Isn't the human conscience a sufficient explanation as to why rape isn't as prevalent as it could be and why it is actively punished?

A code of honour differs from a legal code, also socially defined, in that honour remains implicit rather than explicit and objectified.

They're both legal codes, it's just that one is "formal" and the other is "informal"-- a distinction that only you have yet found useful.

Er, no. I'll repeat, since you clearly didn't read what I wrote:
A code of honour differs from a legal code, also socially defined, in that honour remains implicit rather than explicit and objectified.

Honour code: Implicit socially defined rules concerned with justice.
Legal code: Explicit and objectified socially defined rules concerned with justice.
- Informal legal code: Law uncodified by a legal institution.
- Formal legal code: Law codified by a legal institution.

And btw, you were the one who asked about the distinction after I used the terms. I didn't intend for it to become a whole thing. As I recall, my point was that both are legal codes.

Er, what? Unethical and immoral are synonyms.

Your philosophy teacher was a liar, or mistaken, or you misunderstood.
Philosophical scepticism is an approach that requires information to be well supported by evidence.
Nihilism extends to values, reaching the conclusion that they are baseless.
Nihilism has nothing to do with solipsism, egoism, egotism, or narcissism - because, guess what, those are based on arbitrary and artificial values too. If you choose those values after realising that values are baseless, then that speaks to your character and attitude to the world - it says nothing of nihilism.

The self isn't an arbitrary and artificial value. Nihilism is intrinsically egoist: it takes the self as the only real value and bases all good on what is good for the self. If I want this, I will take it, because law is a social construct so it doesn't matter, right? If I want to rape this woman, I will, because ownership of the self is a social construct so it doesn't matter, right? If I want to kill that man, I will, because everything supporting his rights to life are social constructs, so whatever I say goes. You cannot be a nihilist and not be an egoist. You can donate whatever you want to charity or help the homeless all you want, and you would gain the trait of altruist, but you would still be a philosophical egoist. You donated to charity because you thought it would be good for people so you made the decision to advance your own goals of self-satisfaction and happiness. You cannot be a nihilist and be anything other than an egoist.

The value of the self is artificial. The self itself is not a value at all. It's simply a thing. Like a table. Or a thought.
There is no intrinsic reason why I should value my self more than another person's self. It's just another self like all the selves. None inherently more valuable than any other.

Nihilism does not base all good based on what's good for the self. You are confusing it with egoism, which is as arbitrary and baseless as all prescriptivist ethics. Nihilism has no prescriptivist ethics. It does not base all good on what is good for the self because that position is utterly incompatible with ethical nihilism - the point of ethical nihilism is that all prescriptivist ethics are ultimately baseless. So, you see, claiming that a form of prescriptivist ethics has an objective basis is completely contrary to the nihilist position.
A nihilist could be a narcissist, but not a egoist - at least not without cognitive dissonance.

If this is about neurological functions, not law, then ownership is entirely irrelevant.

Any legal person can own. Not all legal persons are humans. Corporations, which have no mind of their own, can be assigned property.
Additionally, though a conscious person can own, the act of owning is not necessarily inevitable or inherent.

Corporations are groups of people, and a corporation really is a joint-title between people of certain property. Shareholders are the joint-owners, and the legal personhood of a corporation in terms of ownership bears a close resemblance to how individual people own property, or perhaps share the ownership of certain property. The fact that your consciousness needs your body to be, however, is very much enough proof to justify the inherent and inevitable fact that yes, you own your body, and, as an extension, yourself.

False. Juridicial persons are recognised as having a distinct legal personality separate from that of their owners.

I didn't say that law does inherently exist.

Ah, but (in social environments), it does.

No. Not inherently. Inevitably perhaps, but not inherently. Social environments are defined by social interdependency and interaction, but not by the presence law.

Stop being irrelevant.

I'm not being irrelevant.

You are. Whether or not non-human animals should have equal legal status to humans is an irrelevant discussion.

In a hypothetical direct democracy in which all members of the society participate in the crafting of law, how is society not the law-crafting institution?

All of society would be part of the legal institution. Consider this: at a school, there are 30 classes for seven different years. The school is the society, the student the individual, and the class the legal institution. If the school dropped 29 classes and only kept one year group in the process, the whole of the school would be one class (legal institution). Does that make class S5EN, or whatever, the whole school? Functionally, perhaps. But S5EN would be a class, and not the whole school, unless you took a jump in simplification in the process.

I see.

What?
A legal institution is either society

Aha, no, unless you're talking about a hypothetical microsociety of 100-ish people where every single action undertaken by the central authority is submitted to mass referendum and there is no sign of human existence outside of this microsociety-- which has never really been the case on Earth.

Just because it has never been the case does not mean that it cannot be the case. Hypothetically it could be the case, but the conditions to make the hypothetical a reality are very unlikely to arise.

or a constituent corporation thereof.

The legal institution is the person, the individual. Law ties constituent corporations together. That is what a state is, and that is also what a state is for: the people resign their freedoms and self-government and pool it all together to make a state, or a central legal authority. Constituent corporations don't have minds, rights, or freedoms. They cannot give up their self-government because they were never self-governing to begin with. Only that which is capable of owning, ie that which has a mind, can be self-governing-- only individuals.

I've previously defined law as something socially defined.
Additionally, my use of "corporation" is in the sociological sense. No state is required. Penguins are known to form corporate groups.

[Twilight Imperium]

Am I just being ignored now?

[Arkolon]

I think part of the problem here is that we're overdefining things here, if that makes any sense. Ask a man on the street what these concepts are, and his answer will be pretty close to the truth, if not simply the truth.

"What is the law?"

"Rules made by the government."

"Why don't you break the law?"

"You'll get arrested."

"How do you know if you own something?"

"'cause I have it."

*shrug*

"Just because" isn't very valid for an ethical prescriptivist base, is it?

[Twilight Imperium]

"Just because" isn't very valid for an ethical prescriptivist base, is it?

Maybe not, but it does give a pretty clear idea of a few things we've been discussing. The nature of legal institutions, a de facto if not de jure view of ownership, et cetera. They say possession is 9/10 of the law, do they not?

In any case, the answer to the question "do we own ourselves" appears to be "no", along legal lines mainly. The followup question "does that change anything" is also no - if we do not own ourselves, then no one does, and we carry on as always. Should we own ourselves? As in, create a specific legal framework in support of that? Maybe.