I have been reading political and moral philosophy by Bentham, John Stewart Mill, Robert Nozick, John Locke.
Absolute right in our life that a pure libertarian would assert is not something majority would agree and can be expected.
I can donate a kidney (if I have two working kidneys) to save the life of a loved one.
But no doctor would take my healthy heart even if I wholeheartedly(!) agree to save the life of a loved one. Kidney and heart are both parts of my body but I seem to have different levels of right to them.
If I want to donate my hair, no one would quibble with that right.
If I am suffering from a terrible chronic hopeless condition, do I have a right to end my life? If I try and don't succeed, I will be punished by the government. If I succeed....
If I give away my car, I cannot claim it back. If I give away myself to slavery, by the same logic, I cannot claim it back. The car example seems just. But the inability to claim back the right to our self that was previously given away bothers us. Why is that? We can acquire another car in time. But we cannot acquire another life. This is the major difference. We can carry on even if we cannot acquire another car. But we cannot carry on (freely) if we give away ourselves.
If I give away myself, who is at wrong? I or the acquirer of my life? There are two independent questions here.
1. Can I give away my life?
2. Can another person acquire my life?
It would appear to me, another person cannot acquire my life. That type of a sale is fundamentally void. If no person (other than myself) can legitimately own me, then, the first question disappears. Who would sell myself to?
If I work for another person or a company, am I selling myself (or my labor) in a limited sense? It is not like I am selling my self absolutely for 8 hours. There is some limited "ownership" that my employer has in me for the eight hours.
Absolute right in our life that a pure libertarian would assert is not something majority would agree and can be expected.
I can donate a kidney (if I have two working kidneys) to save the life of a loved one.
But no doctor would take my healthy heart even if I wholeheartedly(!) agree to save the life of a loved one. Kidney and heart are both parts of my body but I seem to have different levels of right to them.
If I want to donate my hair, no one would quibble with that right.
If I am suffering from a terrible chronic hopeless condition, do I have a right to end my life? If I try and don't succeed, I will be punished by the government. If I succeed....
If I give away my car, I cannot claim it back. If I give away myself to slavery, by the same logic, I cannot claim it back. The car example seems just. But the inability to claim back the right to our self that was previously given away bothers us. Why is that? We can acquire another car in time. But we cannot acquire another life. This is the major difference. We can carry on even if we cannot acquire another car. But we cannot carry on (freely) if we give away ourselves.
If I give away myself, who is at wrong? I or the acquirer of my life? There are two independent questions here.
1. Can I give away my life?
2. Can another person acquire my life?
It would appear to me, another person cannot acquire my life. That type of a sale is fundamentally void. If no person (other than myself) can legitimately own me, then, the first question disappears. Who would sell myself to?
If I work for another person or a company, am I selling myself (or my labor) in a limited sense? It is not like I am selling my self absolutely for 8 hours. There is some limited "ownership" that my employer has in me for the eight hours.
Comments