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 The indeterminacy of ownership in positive law poses no objection to self-ownership theory

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal ownership is not merely analogous to self-ownership but is the conceptual source from which self-ownership derives its normative content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When positive law reveals that ownership is an indeterminate bundle of contestable entitlements, this indeterminacy propagates into self-ownership claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A concept that inherits its meaning from an indeterminate source cannot generate determinate rights over persons without smuggling in prior normative commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.G.A. Cohen demonstrated that self-ownership, even if internally coherent, underdetermines the rights libertarians derive from it without substantive assumptions about world-ownership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the analogy to general ownership is invoked to rescue self-ownership from indeterminacy, the same contested bundle-of-rights structure reappears at the level of world-ownership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The move to 'ownership in general' therefore displaces rather than resolves the indeterminacy objection, leaving libertarian property claims without a determinate foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Self-ownership can be understood as importantly analogous to ownership in general rather than identical to any specific legal ownership arrangement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating self-ownership as analogous to ownership in general reveals a more fruitful way of theorizing rights over persons
      ?

      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.