"Self-ownership" under the microscope of What's Possible

In further attempt to garner a reputation as one of the Mises Community's original thinkers, I submit the following. ;)

 

To Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.:

If you own yourself 100% (that is to say, exclusively), everyone else must own you 0%. That much is simple. To the extent that ownership represents the right to exclude control or possession, self-ownership necessarily entails that God (another moral agent), also, has no right to attempt to control your body without your permission. To claim otherwise is to imply that God does have the right to exclude you from the use of your of your own body as you see fit, which is not "self-ownership" at all if we are to add that God would not be acting unethically if he did such a thing.

And didn't God homestead you ex nihilo? I doubt he would have relinquished his ownership of you, as to do such a thing would imply that if he did later want to do something to you against your will he would be powerless lest he commit an ethical breach (God committing a sin!), even if he wished to save you from yourself. Nor do I believe that he would have relinquished partial ownership, which would necessitate his getting your hopefully-similarly-wise opinion before acting on your body's joint ownership. I doubt there is any input a man may give a God that would give him pause for reflection.

I am very close to claiming outright that Christianity (especially with respect to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) and the alleged "self-evident" status of self-ownership must be mutually exclusive, rendering acts such as murder or theft unethical not because they violate another's self-ownership (which doesn't seem coherent if every individual is divinely homesteaded and subsequently treasured as one of the 'God-owned'), but rather because they utterly fail to "love one's neighbor as oneself," and indeed run counter to that guiding principle. The fulcrum point, then, is love, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any notion of "ownership" or its claim of derivative rights.

 

To All:

If there's even a possibility that a Creator God exists (and I doubt anyone here would be so bold as to assert that there definitely is not), then necessarily the possibility of non-self-ownership exists (as we'll assume that the potential Creator God--or even multiple Creator Gods or Goddesses, for that matter--has homesteaded you and owns you as surely as you own the ants in your ant farm that, like you, cannot recognize the presence of their owner), casting a shadow of doubt on the alleged "self-evident" status of self-ownership.

To wit, saying that self-ownership is "self-evident" implies that the nonexistence of even the possibility of a Creator God (or Goddess, or what have you) is likewise "self-evident." But as one cannot prove a negative, self-ownership aficionados reach a speed bump: self-ownership's alleged "self-evident" status seems to come only with weighty metaphysical assumptions and their impossible burden of proof in tow. Consequently, "self-evident self-ownership" becomes a faith, perhaps even a foolish faith, as one implicitly believes that he has proven a negative.

The ants in the ant farm may believe that it is "self-evident" that they own themselves, having no conception whatever that an Agent greater than them (that would be you) has facilitated their existence. They can have no conception because they are not self-aware. But we are self-aware, and through our self-awareness we are able to recognize this possibility of a hierarchic structure of being that ascends beyond ourselves. "Self-evident" is foolishness when spoken of by the ants. Let's not be the ants.

Ownership means control. Regardless of whether or not God exists, God can't control you.

Edit: Even if there was "joint-ownership" between you and God, it would still be a violation of that ownership for someone else to control you.

Ego:

Ownership means control.

Incorrect. Possession means control, which is just another way of saying, "control means control"--a tautology. Ownership implies the right to exclude control from others.

If we go with your definition instead, we cannot extrapolate that I have acted unethically if I were to strike you. You may say, "I own myself!" to which I would reply, "So? A fruit fly controls himself. You control yourself? So what." So what, indeed. Without the implication of a right to exclude from others, "ownership" is a facade representing nothing more than mere possession. Given the tautological nature of your claim, what you have said, with respect, amounts to zilch.

The is-ought gap is not crossed.

 

Regardless of whether or not God exists, God can't control you.

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious here or not, but I assure you that if the God of one of the major religions is real, he certainly does own you and so certainly can control you, both in the physical sense and in the ethical one.

I'm atheist, but I was under the impression that God gave humans free will. In any event...

I did indeed use a poor definition: "ownerships" means "the right to control". Even if you and God have joint ownership of you, no one else other than you and God have a right to control you. Thanks for helping me clear that up!

Ego:

 

Thanks for helping me clear that up!

Sure. :)

 

I'm atheist, but I was under the impression that God gave humans free will.

I'm not sure what connection this has to my post. Could you elaborate?

I was just saying that if God gives us free will, he probably doesn't want to control us.

My first criticism would be the fact that self-ownership is a deduction of natural law and thus cannot posit anything outside our natural world. When you bring in beings of higher existance than our world and try to fit it into natural law its a misapplication. In Thomas Aquinas' Treatise on Law, he makes the distinction between natural law vs. divine law. Natural law governs the interaction between humans and its discovered by reason while divine law is that between us and God. I think the point can be better clearly made through simple logic, the totality of the human relationships between each other is a subset of natural law while the totality of the relationships between each human and God is a subset of divine law. Between two or more humans, natural law applies, but between us and God, divine law implies. Self-ownership only exists in the set concerned, and thats between one another. The ownership between God and each person is part of a different ethical system. (I'm assuming God exists in the first place)

When I speak of self-ownership I am approaching it from a Rothbardian perspective. In this case "natural law" is a deduction of self-ownership, not the other way around. To explain, the "natural law" that one should not aggress against another is imagined because property in oneself has first been "established." To claim that one should not aggress against one another because of "natural law," without providing a sound basis in self-ownership first, is to build a roof on the grass. Existence precedes knowing, and one cannot know that one should not do X or Y (say, aggress) if existential conditions (say, self-ownership) which facilitate that knowledge are not first brought to fruition.

I deny the two-tiered law of the "natural" and the "divine," and I fault Aquinas for pandering to the demands of his fellow philosophers in postulating the former's existence. To claim that "natural" law governs human --> human interactions while divine law governs human --> God interactions is to--with a flick of one's wand--define God out of the moral sphere of human interaction and so render him of no consequence to that domain. But what of the Bible? The Bible purports to be the word of God, and includes so many laws for human ---> human interactions. There is nothing "natural," if we are to believe its origin, about the Bible. Can we puff out our chests and say that "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is really the redundant hot air of a being who forgot for a moment that he had already built that rule into nature, and that it was waiting to be "discovered" with or without the aid of his breath? I think not.

I believe that many among us (I'm speaking of the earth as a whole) intuitively grasp a fundamentally similar ethic, but I do not at all believe that this is somehow related to "natural" law as made distinct from divine law. In fact, there are problems inherent in the idea of a two-tiered ethic to begin with. The horn of arbitrariness first raises its head, and not long after one must question the ontological dissimilarity between that of a divine standard that is a part of a non-contingent being, and so a structurally necessary aspect of reality and, thus, also the contingent creation that is a part of that reality; and that of "natural" law, which, being derived from "nature" is found to be a contingent, and so structurally unnecessary (in the ontological sense), standard, which, being unnecessary, is no standard at all (no more than a standard could be founded in you or I, as entities contingent and therefore unnecessary for the continued existence of known reality). So now we have aribtrariness and ontological dissimilarity.

I don't buy a "divine & natural" pairing. I buy a divine standard, the structural necessity of which may be founded in its non-contingent origin, and I deny all others.

 

Then again, I'm always willing to eat my words.

That's good sir; Dynamix.

I have evolved myself. I was for giving myself to all, and being a leaf in the wind. This devotion to all, is't cheap or easy when it comes to working at it. I have grown to realize that the morality of monasticism(poverty of christ deal), is fouled. I believe that a creative force exists which may not ever be scientifically explained. Maybe the practical sciences are all developed from scholastic methods and will never see why and how of the creative process without saying that a process goes on in everything. Even should that all in all duality be reconed, I still don't see science activly breaking the vail of eternal questions like why must we all strugle. Rather mentallism may evolve and not be rigorous to traditions given new light. Some folks prefer to follow traditions, cool. Just when traditionalism is subjugated among folks things get rank indeed.

I was really shed light by things like. "the unconsious mind remembers nothing", and polylogism is a falacious skill which may sometimes yield gains despite it's inconsistant method.

I don't give in to all anymore. I try not to be servant but to what is best for me, like my family, or tryin to get folks from hurtin' folks.

Perhaps if I'm a taoist whatever I will do will be part of the way. I don't feel that all is purposfull other than as a method. Whether there is a way or not I know one thing I can ball up like the best of baller uppers.

 

P.S. I'm afraid to be Charlie and loose all the great personality and knowlege I've gained. And, in a repair fassit it's not remembering exactly how something is done, but how the methods help one acheive repairs. Oops that may be polylogistic too.

Well, sorry if that is all blah blah blah.

To wit, saying that self-ownership is "self-evident" implies that the nonexistence of even the possibility of a Creator God (or Goddess, or what have you) is likewise "self-evident." But as one cannot prove a negative, self-ownership aficionados reach a speed bump: self-ownership's alleged "self-evident" status seems to come only with weighty metaphysical assumptions and their impossible burden of proof in tow. Consequently, "self-evident self-ownership" becomes a faith, perhaps even a foolish faith, as one implicitly believes that he has proven a negative.

It's no more a faith than atheism is. Moreover, even if one were to discover the existence of a creator god it'd prove little to nothing, as that god maybe have accidentally created the beings in questiion, may have relinquished ownership, may by power of logic be forced to admit that its own claims of ownership over others are self-contradictory &c. When logical reasoning gives little to no good reason to believe in a god, or to doubt self-ownership, one can indeed assume it to be self-evident - more than can be said for the existence of any deity. It's self-evident to me that there aren't fairies flying around my head - that there might be is mere conjecture. I'll agree on one thing - self-ownership and the NAP cannot be taken as axioms. They require proof within the context of an ethical system.

-Jon

Bank Run:

That's good sir; Dynamix.

I have evolved myself. I was for giving myself to all, and being a leaf in the wind. This devotion to all, is't cheap or easy when it comes to working at it. I have grown to realize that the morality of monasticism(poverty of christ deal), is fouled. I believe that a creative force exists which may not ever be scientifically explained. Maybe the practical sciences are all developed from scholastic methods and will never see why and how of the creative process without saying that a process goes on in everything. Even should that all in all duality be reconed, I still don't see science activly breaking the vail of eternal questions like why must we all strugle. Rather mentallism may evolve and not be rigorous to traditions given new light. Some folks prefer to follow traditions, cool. Just when traditionalism is subjugated among folks things get rank indeed.

I was really shed light by things like. "the unconsious mind remembers nothing", and polylogism is a falacious skill which may sometimes yield gains despite it's inconsistant method.

I don't give in to all anymore. I try not to be servant but to what is best for me, like my family, or tryin to get folks from hurtin' folks.

Perhaps if I'm a taoist whatever I will do will be part of the way. I don't feel that all is purposfull other than as a method. Whether there is a way or not I know one thing I can ball up like the best of baller uppers.

 

P.S. I'm afraid to be Charlie and loose all the great personality and knowlege I've gained. And, in a repair fassit it's not remembering exactly how something is done, but how the methods help one acheive repairs. Oops that may be polylogistic too.

Well, sorry if that is all blah blah blah.

Thanks for the kind words. With respect to problems that remain totally insoluble to science, I think you would very much enjoy Chapter 10: Two Types of Problems in E. F. Schumacher's book A Guide for the Perplexed. You can find the PDF here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?221cugxlgbz

I fail to see how God's ethical notions can be contained within natural law. Natural law come's from man's nature and thus can only apply to man. God does not act within our world and thus it would be absurd to concieve him within the natural law framework. Having natural law extend towards something otherwordly would be quite confusing and irrevelant as natural law can _only_ apply to human interactions. You will be answerable to some god, if such an entity exists, on the day of judgement. Natural law deals with the present which is a dynamic mapping of relationships between people, land and material objects. I also fail to see what ethical system you are proposing as well. If God does exist and we can find his ethical beliefs in his words, taken to be the Bible, then do we start something similar to Christian communism? If what God says is correct and we have interpreted it correctly, then I see how some totalitarian monolith could be put into place to make sure we follow this great ethical will. Due to the fact that its ethical as its coming from the word of God, then we _must_ follow it. In the present, the only way to follow it is to have state planners making sure we follow it. How can God have effective ownership over us as well if he does exist? It does not follow that a creator has exclusive rights over the created. Nor does it certaintly follow that a creature of a separate dimension or world has ownership that extends into our material world. By the way, heres a great systemization of natural law using formal logic. http://rothbard.be/english/articles/the-logic-of-law it would be of great utility to check out. I'm just not interested into debating semantics or getting into philosophy of language debate over self-ownership. I'm an Aristolelian, not a linguist :p.

 Perhaps. But even if God doesn't control us, he might still own us, since other peopel can control my property if I give them permission to.

Jon Irenicus:

 

It's no more a faith than atheism is.

Incorrect: it's no more faith than hard atheism is. Hard atheism claims, "I believe that there is no God." Soft atheism claims, "I do not believe that there is a God." See the difference? For the former it's a faith-based belief in a nonexistence which can't be proved, similar to the faith-based belief of the deist or theist in an existence which also can't be proved. For the latter it's the absence of a belief (i.e., unconnected with faith).

When logical reasoning gives little to no good reason to believe in a god, or to doubt self-ownership, one can indeed assume it to be self-evident [...]

*Sigh.*

"Self-evident self-ownership" is a faith, again, because it implies the self-evidence of the new proposition "there is no God as described in any of the monotheistic religions," which, via reason, cannot be deduced from observable facts.

My claim that the possibility of non-self-ownership exists on account of, if nothing else, the possibility of a theistic Creator makes prima facie good sense. Your objection that we should choose instead to believe in the nonexistence of a being that is already understood a priori, if he exists, to be conceptually unobservable because we lack, a posteriori, observable evidence of it belies a prior commitment to artificially narrowed methodological requirements, and misses the point entirely.

To clarify, your I-have-no-need-for-that-hypothesis presupposition is in this case the red-headed step-child of Ockham's Razor, as it denies a priori the legitimacy of the perfectly legitimate pursuit of the possible truth of immaterial (unobservable) things, which we are here concerned with (again, their possibility!).

 

equack:

I fail to see how God's ethical notions can be contained within natural law.

I don't remember saying or implying that. My apologies if I did.

God does not act within our world [...]

Would you hold it against me if I asked for proof?

I also fail to see what ethical system you are proposing as well.

I haven't proposed any ethical system. What I have proposed is two-fold:

1. Self-ownership cannot lay claim to being "self-evident" or "apodictically certain" as long as the possibility of a Creator who's retained ownership of his homesteaded creation exists. And that possibility does exist. I'm in no way, in this thread, trying to disprove self-ownership as such. That isn't the goal of this thread. My goal is to transport "self-ownership" to a less lofty perch in light of a broadened horizon.

2. Self-ownership is probably incompatible with the conception of God as brought forth by the major monotheistic religions, as in these particular religions it is a given that God may "mess with you" without acting unethically, and he may do so against your will nevertheless. This, along with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is sufficient reason to believe that, assuming a major monotheistic religion is true, we are all as individuals God-owned, not self-owned. And we obviously cannot be both at the same time.

If God does exist and we can find his ethical beliefs in his words, taken to be the Bible, then do we start something similar to Christian communism? If what God says is correct and we have interpreted it correctly, then I see how some totalitarian monolith could be put into place to make sure we follow this great ethical will. Due to the fact that its ethical as its coming from the word of God, then we _must_ follow it. In the present, the only way to follow it is to have state planners making sure we follow it.

This is immaterial to the purpose of this thread (as outlined above) so I respectfully decline to respond to it.

How can God have effective ownership over us as well if he does exist? It does not follow that a creator has exclusive rights over the created. Nor does it certaintly follow that a creature of a separate dimension or world has ownership that extends into our material world.

You're right, it does not follow that "a creator" or "a creature" has exclusive rights over "the created." But if we are to be more specific and say that we are talking about, for instance, the Jewish conception of God (and in my defense I was in my original post referring to specific monotheistic religions), we would say that the Jewish God most certainly does have exclusive "ownership" over the things that he's created. We reach this conclusion because we cannot say that God has acted unethically by, say, "moving" you against your will, without also making reference to the ethical standard in question that would allow us to make that very judgment. Given that the Jewish ethical standard is derived from that same God, we see that such a claim as "God has violated his own standard" is senseless if we are to believe, as the [religious] Jews do, that God is absolutely holy and immutable.

By the way, heres a great systemization of natural law using formal logic. http://rothbard.be/english/articles/the-logic-of-law it would be of great utility to check out.

I have to admit that that's all like Arabic to me. I know others would be able to comment on it (like Donny with an A), but whether they'll show up in this thread or not, who knows.