Self-ownership

[Jumalariik]

I think that people own themselves, however, they must understand that they are not the main power in their lives; i.e., they should submit to God, however, they have the right not too, they are condemning themselves to hell though.
Basically, spiritual self ownership; the right to free will, should also apply to society.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The person is not made from the functional body, the person is the functional body, which only acts in accordance to natural laws beyond the control of the individual.

[Arkolon]

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.

???

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not being irrelevant.

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

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.

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.

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.

Spoilered? Seriously?

Give me, like, a week. Not only am I busy, but navigating my way through this morass is going to take me more time than it should to write a reply. Can't you press the Enter key to divide one quote from another? It looks like I'm pretending that my computer screen is a touchscreen to reply through this post.

[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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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


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

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

I see.

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.

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.

Spoilered? Seriously?

Give me, like, a week. Not only am I busy, but navigating my way through this morass is going to take me more time than it should to write a reply. Can't you press the Enter key to divide one quote from another? It looks like I'm pretending that my computer screen is a touchscreen to reply through this post.

Yes, spoilered to conserve space. I thought it considerate to the others posting.

You didn't a week to navigate it when it was scattered between 3 different posts. If anything, this is far easier to navigate, it being all in one place.
Why are you suddenly complaining about the quotes now? It's the same as all the other previous times, I just selected-all/copied/pasted one post beneath the other in a separate spoiler.

[Sociobiology]

by that logic I own my friends and relatives.

No, you don't, because they are, I should think/hope, alive, and therefore they are conscious, which means that they cannot be owned.

which means self ownership cannot be true.

[Sociobiology]

really? you have a purely logical reason a living human is objectively better than a dead one? one that does not start with the assumption that human life is valuable, which would make it circular.

This was never asked or put into question. Stay on topic, if you can.

so you don't have an objective morality, got it.

exactly, because they are all subjective.

You cut out the rest of my post, there.

because the rest was irrelevant once that point is made.

well there is a gaping hole in your logic so it fails by that measure as well.

No, there really isn't.

stunning argument.

it not my fault you never told it to anyone who paid attention.
nice argumentum ad populum by the way, if that is acceptable than slavery was indeed legitimate because people believed it to be so. Kinda hamstringing your own argument there.

I'm just saying. The purpose of this wasn't to throw you onto the bandwagon that way. I wanted to tell you that this isn't something I just thought of once and kept to myself, sheltering it from criticism and comment. It has been criticised, here and in the real world, and has been altered and corrected accordingly. But not one proofreader has deemed the 7 to 8 logical progression questionable.

until now.
the only reason you bring it up is you somehow believe that that lack of criticism by others should somehow lend weight to your argument. it is the bandwagon fallacy, you should recognize that.

there is no reason dependendence necessitates ownership. my existence is dependent on dozens of physical constants, that does not mean I own them.

The existence of that which allows you to own (your consciousness) is dependent on the existence of cells, electrical connections, nuclei, data, fluids, gases, subatomic particles, and everything in between.

no one is arguing against this.

The blood that flows through your veins is yours.

this is the unfounded leap again, you have just restated it, you have given no logical reason your need creates ownership.

If you donate it to someone else, you can do so because that blood is yours.You cannot donate someone else's blood without their permission because their blood is not yours

which is na argument from the current legal system thus irrelevant to a claim of objective truth.

Why do you own your blood?

because the society I live in and the state thereof says I do

And if you own your blood, you own everything else that makes you, too.

IF being the key word.

A computer depends on the silicon in its chips no one claims that means they own it,

A computer is not a Master, and therefore cannot own. Whoever owns the computer owns the silicon in its chips, too.

Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now. and remember if say thought or self awareness there are computers that qualify.

Society depends on having humans that does not mean society owns you. dependence =/= ownership.

Society is not a Master, and therefore cannot own, either.

I'll repeat it"Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now." and remember if say thought or self awareness then societies qualify.
I notice your tactic is to just pick a new word then define it as the exact same thing you have argued before that has been shot down.

I have said this multiple time, and each time you simply ignore it, please stop wasting my time, either describe why dependence necessitates ownership or admit you have a huge hole in your logic.

I brought the topic up, writing an OP and contributing what I count to be the most in this thread in the effort to defend my position, you writing here that you're wasting your time is not my fault. You're the only one wasting your time.

your right I'm wasting my own time by arguing with someone who can't keep their argument straight. but I'll beat my head against the wall anyway.

this 5 also makes no sense, beside the string being circular, 2<->4, nothing in that string necessitates ownership being exclusive, so the leap to 5 has no foundation.

It's a two-part proof.

with the first part being untrue thus the second part is largely irrelevant, but I kept it to point out that it was also flawed in the exact same way.

If the individual assumptions of your argument do not stand on their own then you cannot claim your argument/proof/string is true.

[Arkolon]

Spoilered? Seriously?

Give me, like, a week. Not only am I busy, but navigating my way through this morass is going to take me more time than it should to write a reply. Can't you press the Enter key to divide one quote from another? It looks like I'm pretending that my computer screen is a touchscreen to reply through this post.

Yes, spoilered to conserve space. I thought it considerate to the others posting.

You didn't a week to navigate it when it was scattered between 3 different posts. If anything, this is far easier to navigate, it being all in one place.

I don't read posts when they're posted. I read them while I'm quoting and comment on them as I go along, unless I'm on my phone, am busy, both, or just reading NSG to pass the time. At least in this thread, I never look at posts until the BBCode is visible. You may notice, although it's very subtle, I change the paragraphing of certain posters' posts because otherwise I cannot read what they wrote. With you, for example, I have to space everything out so I can read it, comment on it, only to then later remove all the spaces so as to make it intelligible for everyone else reading.

I guess it's just a personal habit, though.

Why are you suddenly complaining about the quotes now? It's the same as all the other previous times, I just selected-all/copied/pasted one post beneath the other in a separate spoiler.

Because spoilers, especially when there are, what, two of them, mean navigating and mind-bookmarking and things that take more time than I would be open to allowing them to, to be honest. Plus, I have other preoccupations in the external world until the weekend, so there's that, too.

[Arkolon]

No, you don't, because they are, I should think/hope, alive, and therefore they are conscious, which means that they cannot be owned.

which means self ownership cannot be true.

Mind QEDing that for me?

[Conscentia]

Yes, spoilered to conserve space. I thought it considerate to the others posting.
You didn't a week to navigate it when it was scattered between 3 different posts. If anything, this is far easier to navigate, it being all in one place.

I don't read posts when they're posted. I read them while I'm quoting and comment on them as I go along, unless I'm on my phone, am busy, both, or just reading NSG to pass the time. At least in this thread, I never look at posts until the BBCode is visible. You may notice, although it's very subtle, I change the paragraphing of certain posters' posts because otherwise I cannot read what they wrote. With you, for example, I have to space everything out so I can read it, comment on it, only to then later remove all the spaces so as to make it intelligible for everyone else reading.
I guess it's just a personal habit, though.

It's still the same as every other time you've responded, I've merely copied/pasted the two longer posts into the same post inside different spoilers. You can still read through while quoting. Nothing is different. It's no different to two consecutive posts.

Why are you suddenly complaining about the quotes now? It's the same as all the other previous times, I just selected-all/copied/pasted one post beneath the other in a separate spoiler.

Because spoilers, especially when there are, what, two of them, mean navigating and mind-bookmarking and things that take more time than I would be open to allowing them to, to be honest. Plus, I have other preoccupations in the external world until the weekend, so there's that, too.

What?
Spoilers mean no such thing. You click it, and the quoted post appears as normal. You can respond to it as normal.
If it's really a problem, just break the spoiler tags by changing both to [/spoiler/], and then it's exactly the same as always.

[Twilight Imperium]

which means self ownership cannot be true.

Mind QEDing that for me?

Ark, buddy. Pal. The whole point of this thread was you QEDing the opposite. We're not here to prove a point. We're your review board. You've got to show a connection between needing a body and owning one, and thus far no one's buying what you've got. Either change it up or go rethink things.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I was just thinking. What if everyone owns everyone? This is, surprisingly, a serious statement. After all, you are held responsible for your actions by others.

[Arkolon]

This was never asked or put into question. Stay on topic, if you can.

so you don't have an objective morality, got it.

No, it's just that this was off-topic to the point of contextual irrelevancy. Scarcity, as you should know, creates value. Less supply of a product (or more demand) increases its value. Making something rarer makes something more valuable. Death is infinite (once you are dead you cannot live again), but mortal life is finite (you can only live once and for max. about a hundred years). The very fact that human life is scarce makes human life valuable. Anywhere in the world, or in the universe, that which is scarcer is more valuable than that which is overabundant. A live human being is objectively more valuable than a non-living human being because its life is not permanent-- it is scarce.

No, there really isn't.

stunning argument.

You have yet to point it out to me. Something about something that is yours not necessarily belonging to you? All I fail to do is see how this is such a big leap in logic, says you.

I'm just saying. The purpose of this wasn't to throw you onto the bandwagon that way. I wanted to tell you that this isn't something I just thought of once and kept to myself, sheltering it from criticism and comment. It has been criticised, here and in the real world, and has been altered and corrected accordingly. But not one proofreader has deemed the 7 to 8 logical progression questionable.

until now.
the only reason you bring it up is you somehow believe that that lack of criticism by others should somehow lend weight to your argument. it is the bandwagon fallacy, you should recognize that.

I ... just did? I told you it was a bandwagon and you're telling me I should realise it's a bandwagon fallacy?

The existence of that which allows you to own (your consciousness) is dependent on the existence of cells, electrical connections, nuclei, data, fluids, gases, subatomic particles, and everything in between.

no one is arguing against this.

I don't understand how what makes me doesn't belong to me. I see no leap. I see no gaping holes. I see a logical deduction from existence. A brick house is made of bricks: if I own the house, I own each and every constituent brick just as much. If I steal a woman's handbag, which is comprised of not only the materials to make the handbag but also the makeup paraphernalia found within it, then I would have stolen said paraphernalia just as much as I had stolen the handbag. If I managed to literally own someone, every blood cell, saccharide, and tissue of theirs would be under my possession just as much. It is logical. How you disagree with this is more a jump on your behalf that you have yet to justify.

The blood that flows through your veins is yours.

this is the unfounded leap again, you have just restated it, you have given no logical reason your need creates ownership.

B, the constituent relative matter of A, is the property of A because if A is appropriated then B would be under the owner's possession just as much as A is. If A is itself an owner, ie it is a conscious mind, then the B belongs directly to the A instead of passing through countless non-conscious middle-men.

If you donate it to someone else, you can do so because that blood is yours.You cannot donate someone else's blood without their permission because their blood is not yours

which is na argument from the current legal system thus irrelevant to a claim of objective truth.

Why do you own your blood?

because the society I live in and the state thereof says I do

They could say that all your blood belongs to Kevin, who lives a few blocks down, because he is The Chosen One. Does that legitimise his claim to everyone's body and blood? Would you still shrug your shoulders and say, hey, whatever, it's The Law and none must ever disobey The Law?

And if you own your blood, you own everything else that makes you, too.

IF being the key word.

If I ask "why", "if" is the traditional subsequent form of asking a second question that follows from the first "why". "Why is the answer seven? If the answer is seven, how many apples does that mean you can buy?"

A computer is not a Master, and therefore cannot own. Whoever owns the computer owns the silicon in its chips, too.

Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now. and remember if say thought or self awareness there are computers that qualify.

"Master" is capitalised, and I've already used the capitalised iteration of the word before in this thread with you. Anything that is conscious, ie that is capable of owning, can own.

Society is not a Master, and therefore cannot own, either.

I'll repeat it"Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now." and remember if say thought or self awareness then societies qualify.
I notice your tactic is to just pick a new word then define it as the exact same thing you have argued before that has been shot down.

This would be apt if, you know, I actually used a new word.

your right I'm wasting my own time by arguing with someone who can't keep their argument straight. but I'll beat my head against the wall anyway.

It's very straight. It has two parallel sides: a dualist and a monist argument. Both have been following the same straight line since I pressed "Submit" for the OP.

If the individual assumptions of your argument do not stand on their own then you cannot claim your argument/proof/string is true.

[/quote]
They do, though. What you're upset about is a supposed jump between assumptions, not an assumption itself. It's almost like you don't even know what you're slagging off anymore.

[Sociobiology]

so you don't have an objective morality, got it.

No, it's just that this was off-topic to the point of contextual irrelevancy. Scarcity, as you should know, creates value.

it is one of the factors that creates value. franklinite and clouded leopards are far rarer than gold but no where near as valuable. in nature gold is all but worthless because it is useless. You are assuming a given definition of value based on the scarcity, it is a circular argument.

Less supply of a product (or more demand) increases its value. Making something rarer makes something more valuable. Death is infinite (once you are dead you cannot live again), but mortal life is finite (you can only live once and for max. about a hundred years). The very fact that human life is scarce makes human life valuable.

clouded leopards are far scarcer than humans, do you argue they are more valuable, humans are among the most common large animals on the planet.

until now.
the only reason you bring it up is you somehow believe that that lack of criticism by others should somehow lend weight to your argument. it is the bandwagon fallacy, you should recognize that.

I ... just did? I told you it was a bandwagon and you're telling me I should realise it's a bandwagon fallacy?

you said it was a bandwagon then went on to describe an argument that is exactly a bandwagon fallacy. just because you recognize it it a fallacy does not mean you can keep using it.

no one is arguing against this.

I don't understand how what makes me doesn't belong to me.

because they are two separate distinct characteristics, unless you describe why one causes the other there is no reason to assume they do.

I see no leap. I see no gaping holes. I see a logical deduction from existence.

I know that, thats why I keep explaining it to you.

A brick house is made of bricks: if I own the house, I own each and every constituent brick just as much.

IF, being the key phrase
the question in this analogy is IF you own the house.

this is the unfounded leap again, you have just restated it, you have given no logical reason your need creates ownership.

B, the constituent relative matter of A, is the property of A because if A is appropriated then B would be under the owner's possession just as much as A is.

which assumes A can be owned, A is basic point being argued. you can't just take your conclusion as your assumption.

If A is itself an owner, ie it is a conscious mind,

another contested point.

then the B belongs directly to the A instead of passing through countless non-conscious middle-men.

Or B could not be owned by anyone, you are assuming it can be owned. or it could be owned by multiple entities, there are several other possiblities you fail to account for.

which is na argument from the current legal system thus irrelevant to a claim of objective truth.

because the society I live in and the state thereof says I do

They could say that all your blood belongs to Kevin, who lives a few blocks down, because he is The Chosen One. Does that legitimise his claim to everyone's body and blood?

if it was consistent with the other laws then legally, yes it would justify it in that context. Remember I make no claim to objective morality unlike you.

Would you still shrug your shoulders and say, hey, whatever, it's The Law and none must ever disobey The Law?

nice try with the strawman.

IF being the key word.

If I ask "why", "if" is the traditional subsequent form of asking a second question that follows from the first "why".

no actually, first comes IF then WHY,
example
Why, does yellow taste like stardust.
meaningless, the correct starting question is IF yellow tastes like stardust.
there can be no WHY when IF is not established.

"Why is the answer seven? If the answer is seven, how many apples does that mean you can buy?"

even here IF is the ultimate question, IF the answer is not seven, asking WHY it is seven has no meaning IF it is not seven.

Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now. and remember if say thought or self awareness there are computers that qualify.

"Master" is capitalised, and I've already used the capitalised iteration of the word before in this thread with you. Anything that is conscious, ie that is capable of owning, can own.

so by your own logic some computers can own, thus my question is valid.

I'll repeat it"Another new definition, Ok I'll bite whats defines a "master" now." and remember if say thought or self awareness then societies qualify.
I notice your tactic is to just pick a new word then define it as the exact same thing you have argued before that has been shot down.

This would be apt if, you know, I actually used a new word.

which you have.
first it was person, then mind, then master.

your right I'm wasting my own time by arguing with someone who can't keep their argument straight. but I'll beat my head against the wall anyway.

It's very straight. It has two parallel sides: a dualist and a monist argument. Both have been following the same straight line since I pressed "Submit" for the OP.

constantly changing terms and definitions is not a straight line.

If the individual assumptions of your argument do not stand on their own then you cannot claim your argument/proof/string is true.

They do, though. What you're upset about is a supposed jump between assumptions, not an assumption itself. It's almost like you don't even know what you're slagging off anymore.

as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SHən/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

if you claim something as part of an argument without demonstration of logical necessity or evidence you are using it as an assumption, an unfounded one at that. I know exactly what I am saying. Now do you have an answer to the actual point, do you have any logical reason to make that jump? Or will continue with red herrings?

[Twilight Imperium]

I see no leap. I see no gaping holes. I see a logical deduction from existence.

This is the problem, I think. It's so obvious to you that it's almost unthinkable that it wouldn't be obvious to us. But, it isn't.

[Arkolon]

???

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

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?

Err, yeah? They could do it, and I would advise them to if it was the lesser of an array of evils, but how could I pretend that the lesser of two evils is no longer an evil?

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.)

Rapists don't mean to rape-- it's not their fault?

(what???)

I've told you, as a nihilist and determinist, I don't advocate any prescriptivist ethics - I don't draw any arbitrary lines.

Hard incompatibilist?

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?

"Just because" isn't a sufficient explanation. If it was, this thread would have been over and done with on the first page.

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.

An implicit code is still a code. They're functionally the same in societies.

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.

Can we drop this, then? It's a waste of time as well as off-topic.

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.

It is your self, and you only have one (and you can only ever have one), which makes it scarce, which gives it value.

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.

Talk to Zott about your issues with the void and nihilism, because this doesn't have anything to do with self-ownership.

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.

The corporate "person" is rather a separate extension of its owners.

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.

Functionally, I am right. Semantically, I may be wrong. Inherently, inevitably, honestly, whatever. The point remains.

It wasn't even that long.

[Arkolon]

Mind QEDing that for me?

Ark, buddy. Pal. The whole point of this thread was you QEDing the opposite. We're not here to prove a point. We're your review board. You've got to show a connection between needing a body and owning one, and thus far no one's buying what you've got. Either change it up or go rethink things.

He blurted, out of nowhere, that the reason you don't own your friends and family disproves self-ownership. I'm not sure how he got there (I'm sure you can agree with me on that one), and I asked him to QED how he got there. Every other post I've given is itself a QED of my own opinions. The burden of proof would, in this instance, fall on Sociobiology, considering he made the claim that not owning your friends = not owning yourself.

[Arkolon]

I was just thinking. What if everyone owns everyone? This is, surprisingly, a serious statement. After all, you are held responsible for your actions by others.

That would imply that, were people hypothetically unowned, society is a positive commons, and there is no such thing as positive commons in the state of nature. What would entitle one individual to another individual? Nothing? Is it "just because"?

[Zottistan]

I was just thinking. What if everyone owns everyone? This is, surprisingly, a serious statement. After all, you are held responsible for your actions by others.

That would kind of make ownership a meaningless term, wouldn't it? If everybody owns something, nobody really owns it.

You can only really own something in relation to somebody else's not owning it.

[Arkolon]

No, it's just that this was off-topic to the point of contextual irrelevancy. Scarcity, as you should know, creates value.

it is one of the factors that creates value. franklinite and clouded leopards are far rarer than gold but no where near as valuable. in nature gold is all but worthless because it is useless. You are assuming a given definition of value based on the scarcity, it is a circular argument.

There is a higher demand for gold, which makes it more valuable. Economic scarcity is a combination of low supply and high demand. If Franklinite and clouded leopards had really important uses (ie demand for them is higher), they would be a whole lot more valuable than they currently are.

You only have one self, and you can only ever have one self. You are because of your self (because of your body . . .). There is considerable demand for your body, therefore, and since supply is incredibly low (one life), human life has considerable value. If humans lived forever, or at least could not die until they were 100 years of age (naturally healing or whatever), we would value the life of someone (under 100 at least) much less than we currently do. We wouldn't mind putting humans in difficult, dangerous situations because they would not be able to die. You'd have to limit pain, too, possibly, but the point stands.

Less supply of a product (or more demand) increases its value. Making something rarer makes something more valuable. Death is infinite (once you are dead you cannot live again), but mortal life is finite (you can only live once and for max. about a hundred years). The very fact that human life is scarce makes human life valuable.

clouded leopards are far scarcer than humans, do you argue they are more valuable, humans are among the most common large animals on the planet.

Is there a lot of figurative demand for clouded leopards? If not (and there isn't), then I do not value them as much as I value human beings.

A brick house is made of bricks: if I own the house, I own each and every constituent brick just as much.

IF, being the key phrase
the question in this analogy is IF you own the house.

Since, because, due to the reason that, once, when I will, I will, I have the possibility to. . . would all work just as well as "if".

Because I own the brick house, I own each and every constituent brick just as much.

B, the constituent relative matter of A, is the property of A because if A is appropriated then B would be under the owner's possession just as much as A is.

which assumes A can be owned, A is basic point being argued. you can't just take your conclusion as your assumption.

If A is itself an owner, ie it is a conscious mind,

another contested point.

How exactly is this contested?

then the B belongs directly to the A instead of passing through countless non-conscious middle-men.

Or B could not be owned by anyone, you are assuming it can be owned. or it could be owned by multiple entities, there are several other possiblities you fail to account for.

A can be one individual or a community of individuals.

They could say that all your blood belongs to Kevin, who lives a few blocks down, because he is The Chosen One. Does that legitimise his claim to everyone's body and blood?

if it was consistent with the other laws then legally, yes it would justify it in that context. Remember I make no claim to objective morality unlike you.

So, say you vote for the Democratic Liberal Party, or whatever, against the Kevin Is God Party, and Kevin claims the seat of dictator, or whatever, by the narrow absolute majority of 67% vs. 33%. You participated in the election, which is you agreeing to the social contract by explicitly using government services, so does that mean that Kevin butchering up whoever he wants because, and you should agree to this because, you know, The Law is The Law, and, finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all? At all?

Would you still shrug your shoulders and say, hey, whatever, it's The Law and none must ever disobey The Law?

nice try with the strawman.

Honestly, I wish it was a strawman. The fact that this is actually how you perceive legal societies to function doesn't make what I said a strawman.

"Master" is capitalised, and I've already used the capitalised iteration of the word before in this thread with you. Anything that is conscious, ie that is capable of owning, can own.

so by your own logic some computers can own, thus my question is valid.

Which computers? Minds are nonphysical, I think, so I don't see how a computer could own when it cannot think on its own.

This would be apt if, you know, I actually used a new word.

which you have.
first it was person, then mind, then master.

Synonyms. I can go back to mind/person/self, if you want. The object-master relationship was slave-master with "slave" being replaced by "object", because the object-master relationship disproves the possibility of legitimate slavery.

[Conscentia]

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

Err, yeah? They could do it, and I would advise them to if it was the lesser of an array of evils, but how could I pretend that the lesser of two evils is no longer an evil?

It isn't evil.

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.)

Rapists don't mean to rape-- it's not their fault?
(what???)

No, and that isn't even remotely close to what I said.

I've told you, as a nihilist and determinist, I don't advocate any prescriptivist ethics - I don't draw any arbitrary lines.

Hard incompatibilist?

Hard determinist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism#mediaviewer/File:DeterminismXFreeWill.svg

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?

"Just because" isn't a sufficient explanation. If it was, this thread would have been over and done with on the first page.

It isn't "just because". It's the result of physics.

An implicit code is still a code. They're functionally the same in societies.

Honour does indeed serve the same function as law, but they are not the same thing.

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.

It is your self, and you only have one (and you can only ever have one), which makes it scarce, which gives it value.

There are 7 billion humans. We are not at all scarce.
If you count each human as being a unique entity, then they are all equally scarce.

Talk to Zott about your issues with the void and nihilism, because this doesn't have anything to do with self-ownership.

I was addressing your issues. I have no issues with nihilism.

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

The corporate "person" is rather a separate extension of its owners.

If it's separate from it's owners, then it isn't an extension of them. Extensions of things are not separate.

[Conscentia]

I was just thinking. What if everyone owns everyone? This is, surprisingly, a serious statement. After all, you are held responsible for your actions by others.

That would kind of make ownership a meaningless term, wouldn't it? If everybody owns something, nobody really owns it.
You can only really own something in relation to somebody else's not owning it.

Indeed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I was just thinking. What if everyone owns everyone? This is, surprisingly, a serious statement. After all, you are held responsible for your actions by others.

That would kind of make ownership a meaningless term, wouldn't it? If everybody owns something, nobody really owns it.

You can only really own something in relation to somebody else's not owning it.

Ownership is a concept only given meaning by how human beings perceive it.

[Twilight Imperium]

There is considerable demand for your body, therefore, and since supply is incredibly low (one life), human life has considerable value. If humans lived forever, or at least could not die until they were 100 years of age (naturally healing or whatever), we would value the life of someone (under 100 at least) much less than we currently do. We wouldn't mind putting humans in difficult, dangerous situations because they would not be able to die. You'd have to limit pain, too, possibly, but the point stands.

There's demand for my body? I should hit the clubs more.

That aside, humans in general are, as noted, not hard to come by. If my specific form was in demand, then it'd be worth quite a bit. I'll bet there's more demand for someone like say, Scarlett Johannson than lil' ol me though.

[Zottistan]

That would kind of make ownership a meaningless term, wouldn't it? If everybody owns something, nobody really owns it.

You can only really own something in relation to somebody else's not owning it.

Ownership is a concept only given meaning by how human beings perceive it.

Well yes, but if it's to have any real-world applications, everybody owning everybody is invalid. It's the same as nobody owning anybody.

[Salandriagado]

Yes. Mostly.



Because you physically have control over your own actions (except when you don't, because brains are weird).

So why do you pretend that you don't own yourself? If you can govern yourself, you own yourself.

Because control =/= ownership. I cannot sell myself, therefore I do not own myself.