Philosophy Now Forum

What entitles us to say this? Each of us have parents who created us who would more justifiably own our lives than we do ourselves. Aside from legislation, I know of nothing that gives me ownership of my own life.

PhilX

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:38 am
Only you can actually live your life and so logically it has to yours and not anyone elses

Do not the farm and laboratory animals live for the pleasure of humans? For humans then, is the reason it's said we own our lives is due to our level of intelligence?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
For humans then is the reason it is said we own our lives is due to our level of intelligence

Some humans are freer than others as they have greater ownership over their lives
I therefore think that power is at least as important as intelligence in this scenario

It largely depends on whether we can afford to pay for them. If we can't afford to buy our lives from society then we must pay weekly rent.

'Own' appear to be too negative of which the resultant is extreme narcissism, egoism, self-centeredness and all its manifestations that are negative to the well being of the individual and humanity collectively.

The appropriate term should be 'responsible' or accountable for one's life and that of the human species from birth to inevitable mortality.

One of the fundamental basis that one need to be responsible for one's life is based on the empirical experiences of pain & pleasure [in a range of degrees] as observed in human nature.
Generally all human acts that align with the general purpose of life is rewarded with pleasure while those that are against are triggered with pain.
The greatest problem with this fundamental at present is the potential of it to be abused and perverted where 'pain' is equated with 'pleasure, e.g. sadism and others.

Thus every individual must be responsible to align their life to the general purpose, i.e. from birth to inevitable mortality [other than when one is incapacitated as a baby or old age which require separate considerations].

Other than being responsible for one's life, there is no moral basis for one to have absolute ownership of oneself and life.

'I' own 'me' cuz I claim myself and I successfully defend the claim.

A life consists of experiences and memories. The self has/possesses its experiences and memories, i.e. its life. No one other than the self possesses the self's specific experiences and memories.

Even in childhood, the self has its own life. Even in captivity or enslavement, the self experiences what the self experiences. A child’s memory of eating an ice cream cone is different than the parent’s memory of giving an ice cream cone to the child. The parent does not own the child's memory. A prisoner’s experience of torture is different than the torturer’s experience. The torturer does not own the prisoner's experience.

Self owns its own life regardless of intellectual or physical abilities and may accept responsibility and accountability on behalf of social contract.

Sure, but it also consists of flesh and blood and bone and muscle.

We're physical.

Yeah, my experiences are mine alone but if I allow another to shackle me, herd me, jail me then, baby, I'm owned.

It's very Zen to talk about how 'even in the dungeon I was free' but the reality is 'my ass was locked up in the dungeon'.

I, the whole of me, from top of bald head to the tips of callused toes, own 'me'. Not just my internal, subjective states but the flesh and blood and bone and muscle.

I am mine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:33 pm 'I' own 'me' cuz I claim myself and I successfully defend the claim.

You are OWNED, m'lad. Merch.

However, your owners have allowed you a small play pen in which you may run and pretend to be free. The illusion holds until you step outside of the enclosure.

You own it, or its perpetual lease, until it gets sold, that distinction being most graphic when sold into slavery. At that point all and everything you ever owned belongs to someone else.

If the computers stop, possession (mostly) proves ownership of anything owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possessio ... of_the_law

Pernicious opportunistic overt propaganda.

Who would own the life? There are conflicting interests. Society says the mother doesn't, as she cant abort after a certain date. And a parent only can raise a child if it's in accordance with societal standards. As well, we cant legally take our own lives as adults, if we choose to, or die in accordance with our own wishes. So the real question is, what is this nebulous 'society' that owns us, and precludes our wishes? And why does it, because it didn't create us, so wherefore the claim to ownership?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:47 pm Sure, but it also consists of flesh and blood and bone and muscle.

We're physical.

Yeah, my experiences are mine alone but if I allow another to shackle me, herd me, jail me then, baby, I'm owned.

It's very Zen to talk about how 'even in the dungeon I was free' but the reality is 'my ass was locked up in the dungeon'.

I, the whole of me, from top of bald head to the tips of callused toes, own 'me'. Not just my internal, subjective states but the flesh and blood and bone and muscle.

I am mine.

I agree with your comments. I did not intend to omit the physical. Thanks, for correcting my oversight.

Additionally however, I believe that I own the physical me even if my body were 100% restrained. By that, I mean that even if I could not flex my biceps, I would still be the owner of my internal/physical organs.