Sunday, February 7, 2010
Self ownership
In the class we seem to come to the conclusion that, if one tries hard enough and if one really wants to then one can achieve a rational argument, separate from the theology as to why one cannot commit suicide. However I am not completely convinced that this is so.Which made me wonder exactly how much of the rest of Locke's theory would be affected if, this particular section of killing one's self and others could not be entangled from the theological. Are there a parts that directly need this section to be true? or can one still continue with the theory of property without and clashing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is at issue for our purposes here is not suicide as such, but the question of what rational sense it makes to say we own ourselves -- and what natural/rational limitations there might be on such ownership.
ReplyDeleteand locke also points out that no rules are set in stone when he talks about "prerogative" if it is better for everyone else that you commit suicide, i think locke would justify the action
ReplyDeleteI don't really see where in the text he makes a claim of that sort.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between liberty and license will be useful here -- we are free to live in whatever ways make sense to us, but that doesn't give us license to behave however we please... and other things equal, I think Locke might be right that killing yourself is unreasonable.
In II 57, Locke defines freedom as, “a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, ans his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is…” What precisely does Locke mean by “dispose”? Is he referring to the lending of labor? Or, is it something else entirely?
ReplyDeleteLocke might use "dipose" in this situation as a synonym or close-relation to "control". If so, then his claim that freedom is the liberty with which one can control his or her person, actions, and possesions, I think fits nicely within the context of Locke's argument on property.
ReplyDelete'Control' is an effective synonym. I take him to mean that you may do what you like with what belongs to you, within the bounds of reason (as these are augmented by customary and legal restrictions in civil society).
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to ascertain a reasonable excuse for anything we do that is outside the range of theological arguments. I, too, am befuddled by the notion that most of our logic seems to stem from a connection to the divine in some way, regardless of what we believe or how.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, you brought up the discussion on suicide; I think an alternative to why one ought to not kill himself is why one ought to live at all. Well, you could argue that one should live because we are here and should just make the best of it. But then that doesn't answer the issue of "ought" and once again, it is difficult to see a clear rationale for our existence without bringing God into the scope of things.