Self-ownership

[Sociobiology]

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 do realize gold does not have many important uses, the majority of it is used in jewelry.
economics 101, value is subjective.

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.

only if you accept your already circular argument for value.

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.

so you admit it is not intrinsic value, merely subjective value.

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".

IF
conjunction
1.
in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that:

IF does not mean what you think it means, it is a statement of contingency.

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

which is a circular argument. "I own the bricks because I won the house and I own the house because I own the bricks"

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


another contested point.

How exactly is this contested?

do you know what contested means?
"mind = owner" is a contested point in the argument.

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.

or B could not have an owner.

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?

wow resorting to another strawman, have you run out of actual arguments?

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.

I doubt you understand how I think they function, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of conditional legitimacy or social decisions.
You seem to need everything to be absolute.

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

Which computers? Minds are nonphysical,

yeah thats just straight up bullshit. minds are purely physical.

I think, so I don't see how a computer could own when it cannot think on its own.

what part of some computers can think gives you difficulty? you had to be trained by your parents to think, so I would not deride computers for the same flaws you have.

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.

[/quote]
while the real world proves otherwise. this is the problem with the mental masturbation form of philosophy, it is prone to retaining false conclusions. not legitimate to use in our culture is not the same thing as not legitimate.

[Arkolon]

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.

Nine marks missed for not showing your working out.

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 see your whole attitude to life as a scapegoat for failure or ineptitude. "Don't blame me, blame the universe: the Big Bang created matter necessary for elements, molecules, chemicals, and then later cells, organisms, and, by chance, my own consciousness (which is me but I do not have control over it). You can only blame the universe for the football that kicked this vase over, as I had no choice as to how that happened; my actions have been influenced by the environment outside of myself, meaning that I was, in a sense, forced to knock that vase over. I swear."

It's not necessarily wrong, mind you, and it may be hyperbolic (if you could expand on it please do-- I do find it interesting to give thought to), but I can only see your backing out of justifying rape on a descriptivist basis such as this one as you feeling icky over it.

Hard incompatibilist?

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

Have you no degree of choice over any of your actions? I understand the issue at hand with free will (concerns shared by, or rather concerns I adapted from, Locke), but "free choice" (ie the freedom to choose between an array of options) is enough "free will" to justify a libertariano-compatibilist approach.

"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.

Reading back, just how is the human conscience a sufficient explanation as to why rape isn't as prevalent as it could be in the first place? How did you get to there?

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.

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.

It is more the value of your own self that I was explaining, not the value of all human life around the world. But yes, I guess.

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.

Perhaps that did come off as a bit of an oxymoron, but what I mean to say is that the corporate person is but a medium through which human beings can own property. It's all within our current legal framework, anyway: corporate personhood is not intrinsic.

[Arkolon]

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.

How many bodies can you yourself occupy?

[Arkolon]

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.

You can sell part of yourself, though, such as your organs or your bodily fluids. You could also, by the way, sell yourself as well. Although that would have to be illegal and even illegitimate, as, as long as you're still alive, you cannot be owned, but you can only own. Remember that you are your consciousness, and you own extensions of yourself (which is what I'm positing, at least), and extensions of yourself are, naturally, yourself.

[Arkolon]

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 do realize gold does not have many important uses, the majority of it is used in jewelry.
economics 101, value is subjective.

Exactly. When demand is high and supply low, the value is greater. What are you with me disagreeing on?

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.

only if you accept your already circular argument for value.

Ah, so suddenly the subjective theory of value is "circular"?

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.

so you admit it is not intrinsic value, merely subjective value.

As long as I can only occupy one body, the value is functionally intrinsic.

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

which is a circular argument. "I own the bricks because I own the house and I own the house because I own the bricks"

It's not circular. If you own every single brick and build a house from those bricks, then the house would be yours as a result. If you buy a ready-made brick house, you buying the house would entitle you to every individual constituent brick just as much. Those are two different scenarios you lumped into one.

How exactly is this contested?

do you know what contested means?
"mind = owner" is a contested point in the argument.

Argue against it, then, would you? I can't guess what your argument is going to be.

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.

or B could not have an owner.

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?

wow resorting to another strawman, have you run out of actual arguments?

Answer it, though.

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.

I doubt you understand how I think they function, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of conditional legitimacy or social decisions.
You seem to need everything to be absolute.

"Intrinsic" is more or less synonymous to "absolute". Note that everything I argue for is within the context of a Lockean state of nature. "But that's illegal!" is never an argument to put forward in such a context.

Which computers? Minds are nonphysical,

yeah thats just straight up bullshit. minds are purely physical.

Is consciousness physical? That which allows consciousness to be may be physical, but is the consciousness (the mind) really tangible? This isn't some new exception; maths, for instance, is just as abstract and therefore non-physical.

I think, so I don't see how a computer could own when it cannot think on its own.

what part of some computers can think gives you difficulty? you had to be trained by your parents to think, so I would not deride computers for the same flaws you have.

Computers cannot think for themselves. They are not "minds", merely very good representations of human minds.

[Twilight Imperium]

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.

How many bodies can you yourself occupy?

Just the one. Which rather depresses the value of others, in my estimation.

[Arkolon]

How many bodies can you yourself occupy?

Just the one. Which rather depresses the value of others, in my estimation.

We were attempting to attribute value to your own self and your own life, not that of the whole human race.

[Twilight Imperium]

Just the one. Which rather depresses the value of others, in my estimation.

We were attempting to attribute value to your own self and your own life, not that of the whole human race.

True, but while I might value my own life and self highly, I would have little economic imperative to value anyone else's that highly. It's seven billion very tiny markets.

[Arkolon]

We were attempting to attribute value to your own self and your own life, not that of the whole human race.

True, but while I might value my own life and self highly, I would have little economic imperative to value anyone else's that highly. It's seven billion very tiny markets.

The value of everyone else, and through which metrics you would decide on this, is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Twilight Imperium]

True, but while I might value my own life and self highly, I would have little economic imperative to value anyone else's that highly. It's seven billion very tiny markets.

The value of everyone else, and through which metrics you would decide on this, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Then what is the purpose of bringing up supply and demand? That only applies on a macro level.

[Arkolon]

The value of everyone else, and through which metrics you would decide on this, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Then what is the purpose of bringing up supply and demand? That only applies on a macro level.

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

[Conscentia]

It isn't evil.

Nine marks missed for not showing your working out.

You're using a mark scheme for moral absolutists - I'm not sitting that paper.

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

I see your whole attitude to life as a scapegoat for failure or ineptitude. "Don't blame me, blame the universe: the Big Bang created matter necessary for elements, molecules, chemicals, and then later cells, organisms, and, by chance, my own consciousness (which is me but I do not have control over it). You can only blame the universe for the football that kicked this vase over, as I had no choice as to how that happened; my actions have been influenced by the environment outside of myself, meaning that I was, in a sense, forced to knock that vase over. I swear."

It's not necessarily wrong, mind you, and it may be hyperbolic (if you could expand on it please do-- I do find it interesting to give thought to), but I can only see your backing out of justifying rape on a descriptivist basis such as this one as you feeling icky over it.

You don't seem to understand that descriptivist ethics passes no judgement - it merely describes.
You cannot use descriptivist ethics to justify anything. That would not make any sense.

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

Have you no degree of choice over any of your actions? I understand the issue at hand with free will (concerns shared by, or rather concerns I adapted from, Locke), but "free choice" (ie the freedom to choose between an array of options) is enough "free will" to justify a libertariano-compatibilist approach.

An illusion of control is still an illusion. You cannot use an illusion to justification for anything once you're aware it's an illusion - such justification would be built on a lie.

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

Reading back, just how is the human conscience a sufficient explanation as to why rape isn't as prevalent as it could be in the first place? How did you get to there?

Simple - The human conscience causes humans to generally react negatively to rape. Humans attack many things they don't like - spiders, other humans, opponent ideologies, etc.

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.

It is more the value of your own self that I was explaining, not the value of all human life around the world. But yes, I guess.

I address the former, by putting it into the context of the latter.

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

Perhaps that did come off as a bit of an oxymoron, but what I mean to say is that the corporate person is but a medium through which human beings can own property. It's all within our current legal framework, anyway: corporate personhood is not intrinsic.

Doesn't make them less of a person.
Human personhood isn't intrinsic either. The law could restrict personhood to just some humans, or extend it to AIs or the other great apes.

[Twilight Imperium]

Then what is the purpose of bringing up supply and demand? That only applies on a macro level.

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

Perhaps the question of value isn't quite applicable here, if we can only apply it via shoehorning. If something can be owned, then it can be so regardless of how valuable it is.

[Sociobiology]

Exactly. When demand is high and supply low, the value is greater. What are you with me disagreeing on?

you're the one that brought up importance of use once I pointed out scarcity is not in and of itself a good predictor of value.
gold has few uses yet high value, yet many things just as useless but rarer than gold have little value. implying a single measure is flawed.

Ah, so suddenly the subjective theory of value is "circular"?

one that uses its own definition of value as it's exact reason something is valuable is, yes.

As long as I can only occupy one body, the value is functionally intrinsic.

no because you are basing it on a subjective definition of value, scarcity.

It's not circular. If you own every single brick and build a house from those bricks, then the house would be yours as a result. If you buy a ready-made brick house, you buying the house would entitle you to every individual constituent brick just as much. Those are two different scenarios you lumped into one.

IF being the key term in both, you have yet to demonstrate that IF in either case without resorting to using the other in a circular argument.

Argue against it, then, would you? I can't guess what your argument is going to be.

that you have not justified logically why mind = owner. That is all the argument I need. You need to learn to support your own argument before you worry about other people's arguments.

Answer it, though.

why would I answer a strawman. My personal subjective moral opinion has no bearing on whether morality is objective.

"Intrinsic" is more or less synonymous to "absolute".

and just as equally false. unless you are referring to instinctual as intrinsic, in which case it is the very opposite of absolute.

Note that everything I argue for is within the context of a Lockean state of nature. "But that's illegal!" is never an argument to put forward in such a context.

never said it was.

Is consciousness physical?

yes

That which allows consciousness to be may be physical, but is the consciousness (the mind) really tangible?

yes

This isn't some new exception; maths, for instance, is just as abstract and therefore non-physical.

maths are not minds, and they actually are tangible when referring to the brain. They are specific neuron connection patterns.

Computers cannot think for themselves.

some can, at least s much as humans do.
see the turing test.

They are not "minds", merely very good representations of human minds.

[/quote]
a good enough simulation of a human mind is a mind itself.

[Sociobiology]

Then what is the purpose of bringing up supply and demand? That only applies on a macro level.

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

thats your problem.

[Liberaxia]

Then what is the purpose of bringing up supply and demand? That only applies on a macro level.

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

If value is subjective, then morality goes right out the window.

[The Liberated Territories]

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

If value is subjective, then morality goes right out the window.

Lol, no. We can use value as a basis to judge morality.

[Conscentia]

If value is subjective, then morality goes right out the window.

Lol, no. We can use value as a basis to judge morality.

If value is subjective, then the basis of your judgement is not objective, so the conclusions are arbitrary and artificial.

[Arkolon]

Lol, no. We can use value as a basis to judge morality.

If value is subjective, then the basis of your judgement is not objective, so the conclusions are arbitrary and artificial.

I'll make a quick interjection before going to bed.

Scarcity creates value. Always and in all ways: when there is more demand than there is supply of a thing, then it is more valuable. If there is more supply, then it will be less valuable. The "subjective" theory of value is only named so in regards to supply and demand not being fixed variables. Seeing as how your own life is scarce (you can only live finitely and within a single body), your life has value as a result. If your life has no value to you, you would be dead. As long as you are alive, your life is valuable enough to you to be kept alive. As a result, every human life that is just that (alive) has objective value because it is scarce.

And, following from your logic, this attributed objective value to human life renders my judgement equally as objective, in turn making my conclusions not arbitrary and artificial, but just as objective as the steps to reach that point.

[Salandriagado]

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

You can sell part of yourself, though, such as your organs or your bodily fluids. You could also, by the way, sell yourself as well. Although that would have to be illegal and even illegitimate, as, as long as you're still alive, you cannot be owned, but you can only own. Remember that you are your consciousness, and you own extensions of yourself (which is what I'm positing, at least), and extensions of yourself are, naturally, yourself.

You can sell parts of your body. The instant that you do so, they stop being part of your self. The self is an indivisible object, which you agree (though for very different reasons) cannot be sold. Therefore, it cannot be owned. If you cannot sell something, then you don't own it. Simple. It's not even an area of debate: that's just a part of what it means to own something.

[Arkolon]

You can sell part of yourself, though, such as your organs or your bodily fluids. You could also, by the way, sell yourself as well. Although that would have to be illegal and even illegitimate, as, as long as you're still alive, you cannot be owned, but you can only own. Remember that you are your consciousness, and you own extensions of yourself (which is what I'm positing, at least), and extensions of yourself are, naturally, yourself.

You can sell parts of your body. The instant that you do so, they stop being part of your self. The self is an indivisible object, which you agree (though for very different reasons) cannot be sold. Therefore, it cannot be owned. If you cannot sell something, then you don't own it. Simple. It's not even an area of debate: that's just a part of what it means to own something.

I cannot sell my whole body because by doing so my self would have to cease to be, effectively making me dead. If I am still alive, then the exchange is illegitimate because it is nothing but the theft of another's labour. Yet my body is still mine. Similarly, I cannot sell my microvilli, but does that mean that my microvilli do not belong to me? I can sell my blood, though, can I not?

[Conscentia]

If value is subjective, then the basis of your judgement is not objective, so the conclusions are arbitrary and artificial.

I'll make a quick interjection before going to bed.

Scarcity creates value. Always and in all ways: when there is more demand than there is supply of a thing, then it is more valuable. If there is more supply, then it will be less valuable. The "subjective" theory of value is only named so in regards to supply and demand not being fixed variables. Seeing as how your own life is scarce (you can only live finitely and within a single body), your life has value as a result. If your life has no value to you, you would be dead. As long as you are alive, your life is valuable enough to you to be kept alive. As a result, every human life that is just that (alive) has objective value because it is scarce.

And, following from your logic, this attributed objective value to human life renders my judgement equally as objective, in turn making my conclusions not arbitrary and artificial, but just as objective as the steps to reach that point.

Scarcity does not impart objective value. It imposes subjective value. If there is no demand, then the scarceness of an item is irrelevant.

[Salandriagado]

You can sell parts of your body. The instant that you do so, they stop being part of your self. The self is an indivisible object, which you agree (though for very different reasons) cannot be sold. Therefore, it cannot be owned. If you cannot sell something, then you don't own it. Simple. It's not even an area of debate: that's just a part of what it means to own something.

I cannot sell my whole body because by doing so my self would have to cease to be, effectively making me dead. If I am still alive, then the exchange is illegitimate because it is nothing but the theft of another's labour. Yet my body is still mine. Similarly, I cannot sell my microvilli, but does that mean that my microvilli do not belong to me? I can sell my blood, though, can I not?

Sure you can sell your microvilli. It's technically difficult to transfer possession, so good luck finding a buyer, but you can sell them. Throughout all of this, you are assuming that self = body, directly contradicting your earlier statements.

[Arkolon]

Nine marks missed for not showing your working out.

You're using a mark scheme for moral absolutists - I'm not sitting that paper.

You are, however, figuratively in this class.

I see your whole attitude to life as a scapegoat for failure or ineptitude. "Don't blame me, blame the universe: the Big Bang created matter necessary for elements, molecules, chemicals, and then later cells, organisms, and, by chance, my own consciousness (which is me but I do not have control over it). You can only blame the universe for the football that kicked this vase over, as I had no choice as to how that happened; my actions have been influenced by the environment outside of myself, meaning that I was, in a sense, forced to knock that vase over. I swear."

It's not necessarily wrong, mind you, and it may be hyperbolic (if you could expand on it please do-- I do find it interesting to give thought to), but I can only see your backing out of justifying rape on a descriptivist basis such as this one as you feeling icky over it.

You don't seem to understand that descriptivist ethics passes no judgement - it merely describes.
You cannot use descriptivist ethics to justify anything. That would not make any sense.

Describing why is only halfway there. I can say that humans like the sweet taste of sugars as a result of evolution, and this would be the descriptivist method, but ten tablespoons of sugar would make most humans feel a little disgusted. The descriptivist method would be, from what you demonstrate it is, that humans don't like tablespoons of sugar. That doesn't give me anything to work with. It gives me an observation with no conclusion or QED or working out or anything. Why don't the humans like the ten tablespoons of sugar, but naturally like the sweetness of sugars? For what reason? "It's the human conscience" doesn't help me, or anyone, at all. Sure, you've given me a description, but what have you proved?

Morality and ethics function in the same way. You say that the human conscience causes humans to scorn at rape and murder, and that is all you have to say about it. It hardly differs from "just because". You have to tell me why the human conscience causes humans to do so; for what reasons. This is how contemporary philosophers form ethical hypotheses, although most ground them further in states of nature as well. I'd understand your approach if you were only present for one semester at the philosophy courses you may or may not have taken, but you do lack a fundamental part of your approach to ethics. There is a whole bit after it.

Have you no degree of choice over any of your actions? I understand the issue at hand with free will (concerns shared by, or rather concerns I adapted from, Locke), but "free choice" (ie the freedom to choose between an array of options) is enough "free will" to justify a libertariano-compatibilist approach.

An illusion of control is still an illusion. You cannot use an illusion to justification for anything once you're aware it's an illusion - such justification would be built on a lie.

It would be built on an illusion, which is not necessarily a lie (if we define a lie as purposely stating the opposite of epistemological "knowledge" but an illusion as epistemological "belief"). I know I have an illusion of free choice, but I am presented with the option to choose, and because I lack the knowledge required to be as omniscient as Laplace's demon, I effectively cannot foresee what I am about to choose and what the outcomes of this choice (and the potential outcomes of all other choices) would be. I have the illusion of choice, which allows me to make a choice (if there was no illusion of choice there can be no choice-- if you have the ability to choose, you have "free choice").

Pick a number between one and ten. If you picked a number between one and ten, I'm right.

Reading back, just how is the human conscience a sufficient explanation as to why rape isn't as prevalent as it could be in the first place? How did you get to there?

Simple - The human conscience causes humans to generally react negatively to rape. Humans attack many things they don't like - spiders, other humans, opponent ideologies, etc.

Yes, but why?

Perhaps that did come off as a bit of an oxymoron, but what I mean to say is that the corporate person is but a medium through which human beings can own property. It's all within our current legal framework, anyway: corporate personhood is not intrinsic.

Doesn't make them less of a person.
Human personhood isn't intrinsic either. The law could restrict personhood to just some humans, or extend it to AIs or the other great apes.

That's legal personhood. A person is anyone, or rather any thing, that is conscious. In such a sense, the law cannot restrict personhood without killing those restricted.

[Arkolon]

Value is subjective. How else do you want me to assign something value?

Perhaps the question of value isn't quite applicable here, if we can only apply it via shoehorning. If something can be owned, then it can be so regardless of how valuable it is.

This was about objective value as some sort of requirement for human prescriptivist morality, not ownership.