Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Full self-ownership permits voluntary enslavement. — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Full self-ownership permits voluntary enslavement.

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Under full self-ownership, people have the right to control uses of their persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.People also have the right to transfer their rights over their persons to others through sale or gift.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Self-ownership is a continuing relation between a self and its body, not a transferable commodity that can be alienated without destroying the owning subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agreement that extinguishes the very agency required to validate ongoing consent cannot be binding under any coherent theory of contract.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's Formula of Humanity prohibits treating persons merely as means, making voluntary self-commodification self-defeating as a rights-grounded act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.J.S. Mill argued that liberty cannot coherently be used to alienate liberty itself, since the purpose of freedom is ongoing self-determination, not a single irrevocable transaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A contract requiring permanent, unconditional obedience lacks the reciprocal enforceability that distinguishes binding agreements from acts of surrender.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract1 linked

    Related

    A contract requiring permanent, unconditional obedience lacks the reciprocal enf...An agreement that extinguishes the very agency required to validate ongoing cons...J.S. Mill argued that liberty cannot coherently be used to alienate liberty itse...Kant's Formula of Humanity prohibits treating persons merely as means, making vo...
    +3 moreShow less
    People also have the right to transfer their rights over their persons to others...Self-ownership is a continuing relation between a self and its body, not a trans...Under full self-ownership, people have the right to control uses of their person...

    Similar

    Full self-ownership entails that one cannot be used without consent ev...82%Under full self-ownership, people have the right to control uses of th...82%Individuals own their own bodies and labor (self-ownership).80%Voluntary enslavement would require others to control one's will.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: libertarianism
    View source passageHide passage
    A third worry is that full self-ownership may permit voluntary enslavement. Just as people have, on this view, the right to control uses of their persons, they also have the right to transfer their rights over their persons to others, for example through sale or git. However, this is controversial among libertarians, some of whom deny that these kinds of transfers are possible because it’s morally impossible for others to control one’s will (Rothbard 1982; Barnett 1998, pp. 78–82), because such
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit