Do we own our bodies?

[Dilettante]

On the abortion discussion the issue was raised that our bodies are our property. However, I find this a strange concept. Does this mean we are a "ghost in the machine" of the body? Would we be the same person in a different body? Can we rent our bodies? Can we sell our bodies or purchase more than one? If bodies are property, why do rich people have only one? Is it all right then for poor people to sell organs to rich people who need transplants? Shouldn't we acknowledge that we are our bodies?What about our minds? If my mind could be replicated and put into a different body who would that person be? Is the mind just a function of the brain or is there more to it? If so, what? In a brain transplant, would you prefer to be the donor or the recipient? Wouldn't that be a body transplant instead? Help, I'm confused!

[Corvus]

Shouldn't we acknowledge that we are our bodies?

Here are some questions for you in return; why is owning one's body and being one's body mutually exclusive? Doesn't "being our bodies" imply an ownership of self, or at least an ownership of our own state of existence? Finally, why must ownership be transferrable to be considered ownership?

My own personal thoughts are that the mind is not the body, but a function of the body, or, more accurately, one should call it a product of the body, much like a flower is the product of the bush. Though the flower is an extension of the bush, and relies upon it in order to live, it can still be considered its own entitiy. It's not a perfect analogy, since the mind's relationship with the body is significantly more complicated, the product curiously being able to control the producer, but it makes my point.

[Dilettante]

Corvus wrote:

why is owning one's body and being one's body mutually exclusive?

Thanks for responding! Well, I guess because dictionaries define property as "something which is owned", and because we all seem to have this idea that it's things, not people, that can be owned by someone. In the past, certain people (slaves) were no doubt owned by others (their masters) but we fortunately find the thought horrific now, and there must be a reason for this. You have a point, though, in that "self-ownership" may be a special case where the owner and the "thing" owned are one and the same. However this may be a relatively recent concept because I can think of no language in which the verb "own" is reflexive, so you have to use a verbal periphrasis.

Doesn't "being our bodies" imply an ownership of self, or at least an ownership of our own state of existence?

Intuitively I'd say yes it does. However, it's not clear to me what the "self" is. Is it my mind, my body, a combination of the two, or something else. If "owning our state of existence" means being the one who decides how we exist and what for, maybe yes, we do too. But we didn't choose to exist: that was a wonderful gift if we are happy or something forced upon us if we are not. And does that include the right to end our existence?

why must ownership be transferrable to be considered ownership?

I guess it's one of the ways in which we show something is ours: by transferring ownership. If one had a car one could never sell, it wouldn't feel like ownership. It would feel like mere usufruct.

Theories of the identity of the self puzzle me. If a friend of mine and myself exchanged brains, would I be thinking his thoughts or mine? Where would I be? If thought is a product of the brain, I would be thinking his. If it's a product of the body, I'd be thinking mine. Am I making sense?

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote:

why is owning one's body and being one's body mutually exclusive?

Thanks for responding! Well, I guess because dictionaries define property as "something which is owned", and because we all seem to have this idea that it's things, not people, that can be owned by someone. In the past, certain people (slaves) were no doubt owned by others (their masters) but we fortunately find the thought horrific now, and there must be a reason for this. You have a point, though, in that "self-ownership" may be a special case where the owner and the "thing" owned are one and the same. However this may be a relatively recent concept because I can think of no language in which the verb "own" is reflexive, so you have to use a verbal periphrasis.

Doesn't "being our bodies" imply an ownership of self, or at least an ownership of our own state of existence?

Intuitively I'd say yes it does. However, it's not clear to me what the "self" is. Is it my mind, my body, a combination of the two, or something else. If "owning our state of existence" means being the one who decides how we exist and what for, maybe yes, we do too. But we didn't choose to exist: that was a wonderful gift if we are happy or something forced upon us if we are not. And does that include the right to end our existence?

why must ownership be transferrable to be considered ownership?

I guess it's one of the ways in which we show something is ours: by transferring ownership. If one had a car one could never sell, it wouldn't feel like ownership. It would feel like mere usufruct.

Theories of the identity of the self puzzle me. If a friend of mine and myself exchanged brains, would I be thinking his thoughts or mine? Where would I be? If thought is a product of the brain, I would be thinking his. If it's a product of the body, I'd be thinking mine. Am I making sense?

Somewhat. You would first have to describe what you mean by "I". I believe thought is a product of a brain, which is in turn a product of the body. The thoughts, and their patterns, are what I consider my "I". And if those thoughts and their patterns were transferred to another body, I would still be I, but my body would be different. f course since I have an "I", I can decide what that "I" is without going into detail about where it comes from; i.e, I can choose what is "me" from what I have. Other people might choose to define "me" or "I" by appearance entirely. They would also be right. Since we are dealing mainly with linguistic concepts, many distinctions will be subjective. Some are just more reasonable than others within the framework of language. For example, ownership itself is a fictitious concept used to harmonise societies. Apply it to anything other than humans, and it becomes ridiculous. What does an elephant own? What does a dog own? Does a bird own its nest? Not any more than the viper owns the egg it eats. Since all material property is a matter of assigning an arbitrary distinction to what would otherwise belong to the earth, one might say the only thing we can truly own is ourselves, if that. All property is theft!

Make sense? I sometimes go on tangents and lose the point of what I am discussing.