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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Full self-ownership theory must be rejected.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Full self-ownership condemns as wrongful even very minor infringements of the personal sphere, such as tiny bits of pollution falling upon an unconsenting person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Prohibiting all acts that can lead to minor infringements poses an unacceptable limit to liberty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.From the perspective of self-ownership theory, there is no principled difference between minor infringements and major infringements of the personal sphere.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Full self-ownership entails that bodily integrity violations are lexically prior to welfare considerations, generating absolute side-constraints (Nozick).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute side-constraints cannot accommodate threshold cases where infinitesimal harms aggregate into serious injustice without principled resolution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rights theory that cannot adjudicate between trivial and severe boundary crossings lacks the action-guiding capacity essential to any viable moral framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.G.A. Cohen showed that full self-ownership is compatible with severe material deprivation, meaning formal bodily sovereignty fails to secure substantive freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A liberty-grounding theory that permits conditions under which agents cannot exercise their owned capacities undermines its own foundational justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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