Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that 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.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We routinely alienate bodily capacities (labor, organ donation, blood donation) without destroying ourselves, contradicting the continuity claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Prohibiting self-sale in the name of protecting persons paternalistically overrides autonomous choice and individual determination of what harms them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates metaphysical identity with normative ownership; a self might exist through bodily change while still transferring specific rights.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Personal identity requires continuous bodily integration; severing this connection dissolves the unified self that could own anything.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Inalienability protects persons from self-destruction; permitting complete self-sale logically permits voluntary slavery and self-annihilation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ownership implies external control by another; but a self cannot exist separately from its body to grant such control without ceasing to exist.
?
How convincing is this?
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.