in this example the ‘slave owner’ does not engage in argumentation, the argumentation is rhetorical device that we can use to show those slave-owners that are commmited to arguing their case that they are wrong, but you are correct that this wont effect those that dont care to argue with the slave that he is the slave.
however, we as observers of the story/scene are aware that the slave is a rational agent (for the purposes of the story i will assume has been forced into slavery involuntarily),. hence we all agree his rationality, and his self-ownership, and this as all we need to do isnt it? certainly we would be in the right to act as defence proxies for the ‘slave’ if he consented. i think this is enough…
But your statement before was that ownership was transferred, via argumentation ethics, only by the previous owner acknowledging the self-ownership. Thus, he must first acknowledge it, mustn’t he? We can’t just assume, he must act to relinquish the ownership. According to the ethic you cited, anyway. We can’t rightly act to deprive him of that ownership, he must do it himself.
argument ethics is just a tool, to realise a truth, like opening your eyes will let you know whether there is a rock or a bird in front of you. there is a bird or a rock out there regardless of whther you open your eyes or not.
does that help at all?
its not so much as argumentation ethics is the transfer, it is just evidence of the fact that the transfer has kicked in (at the point of emergent rationality of the given subject)
My impression was that argumentation ethics was more literal than you are saying. In any case, how does this escape the flaws of any attempt to measure rationality? And, how do we establish reason for a person who has been denied sophisticated means of communication?
You have still left unanswered the question of how anyone, including the slave himself, takes claim from the previous rightful owner. Isn’t voluntary transfer the only rightful method for transferring property? I feel that you are dodging this basic question.
well, thats toughy isnt it. to put the problem in a nutshell. lets assume that we want to maintain private property as an elevated principle. central to our moral system. and lets suppose that at a certain time somone owns what looks like a rock. its there propoerty like so many people currently own rocks.
lets suppose, like in ‘star trek’, turns out the particular rock is a silicone based sentient being, and it makes its rationality known at a future time, #(it awakes from some kind of funky hibernation). does the original rock owner still own the rock, or has its rationality liberated it. if we say the original owner owns the rock, we enter all sorts of involuntary slavery problems, and if we say the original owner doesnt own the rock then we are at the Hoppean position. (perhaps?!)
No one has advocated beating a child to a defenseless pulp. I do however, defend the right of a parent to kill their child, beat their child, and molest their child, the same as I defend the right of people to treat and do to animals anything they want to, as long as it is their animal or an unclaimed animal.
Also, if reason is the criterion for self-ownership, could we not say that sophisticated computers already ought to be self-owners? It is not reason, but desire and emotion, subjective experience, which differentiates us from inanimate objects. This, obviously, brings up issues with animals and their treatment, but that is beside the point. The fact remains that there are machines currently which, given a certain problem, can formulate a logical solution. What is reason, if not this?
All that said, many of these issues would be avoided if we acknowledged that reason, or whatever criterion you used for human consciousness, is not a singular event but a continual process, and that it is never too early to acknowledge self-ownership. Ignorance of consequences is not the same as lack of reason. I myself remember becoming self-aware. I was about 3, and my father was buying a pack of cigarettes from a vending machine, and I realized that while those images were being put into my memory, I had no previous memories of events in my life at all. I knew people and places, but had no sense of my past. Of course, in realizing this, I realized that I existed. A first moment of introspection. Did I become a self-owner then?
i agree with this in the abstract, but in practice i cant imagine system of voluntary free market produce law and insurance and defence agenies that dont include codes of acceptable conduct vis-a-vis child-owners to be succesful, relative to those laws, codes, and institutions that do address those concerns in a voluntary fashion
its hard for me to respond in depth to your post here, because it covers an awful lot of ground, and im not sure ive understood all that you put in there.
so, here are some minor picks at the edges.
if it can be sustained that some computer is capable of ‘rational action’ then that is an argument for its self-ownership, for it being a moral agent and so on. maybe one day emergent artificial intelligence will arise that means we extend rights to non-biological machines (as opposed to the biological machines that we extend rights to now). but we are a long way off from that…
Theres a chance that I may be pursuaded that a faculty for reason, and a phsyical embeddidness, and a capacity to include phsyical objects in ones plans, might not be sufficient for moral agency; this remains to be seen. but certainly these points must all be necessary. so, some physically embedded computer, that is capable of the manipulation of concepts, yet does not include phsyical objects in its plans (i include here its own ‘body’) is an example of something thats not a moral agent. similarly if a rabbit is a physical creature, and yet cant think rationaly, to the extent that it cant conceptualize right or wrong, and categorize actions of itself and others , if it cant conceptualise between inanimates and sentients, then it too cant be a moral agent) etc.
so we always have to be careful to keep reason in there, no matter what else we add in.
perhaps you became a self-owner at 3. if, from that point on you could conceptualise that your parents where distinct moral agents, and that they insisted on various rules of conduct in their abode, or granted themselves authority to behave in certain ways on their property, and that you could exit the property to break their ‘authority’; thereby taking with you all the propoerty you had in the world (your body, and any items your parents gifted to you on absolute terms)
I am pleased that it pleases you. These are interesting subjects.
I should add, then, that my ability to communicate this self awareness was very limited. My reason, in a sense, exceeded my ability to express it. How then, would you know? Is it not best to err on the side of caution? You bring up the example of a rabbit; why is it said to have no reason? When hungry, does it not know to seek grass, when afraid, does it not know to flee and hide? Are these not reasonable actions? A crow can figure out a puzzle with pulleys to get food, does it not possess reason. An baby, once it gains control of its limbs, can figure out which shape will fit through each slot in a plastic toy. Is this not reason? If you hold reason to be the criterion for self-ownership, define reason! What is the threshold?
Listen up pinko. Parents own their property (or so we’re assuming) children voluntarily chose to reside on said property. Parents, by virtue of owning the property may set the rules and regulations regarding the use of the property. This includes specifying punishments. If the child voluntarily lives on the property they choose to accept these rules and abide by them.
i agree with you that i could benefit from spending more time reading the philosphers on Reason. things like http://mises.org/EPOFE//C1P2SEC4.ASP
but i know that you and i can conceptualize right or wrong, and understand things like the law of non-contradiction etc. evidence get slim down the animal chain for that kind of stuff. I do know that moral agency without reason falls flat on its face, thats just the main point i wanted to make
There is no question begged, only, a question answered not to your satisfaction. My entire point is that the behaviour is not being excused without regarding the context. It is the context that renders the behaviour legitimate since the child has assumed the responsibility of abiding by the rules and accepting the punishment by staying on the property of the parent.
If I warn you that if you take heroin on my property I will kill and you then proceed to do so, it is perfectly justifiable that I should stick to my word.
No, I’m not. You’re just not very bright. At first the child lacks the right to make any contracts due to lack of ability to reason. Upon reaching a certain level of development the child may. It’s not very difficult.
Asserted, not explained.
Why not? If I own the property I set the rules, if you don’t like them you can leave. This is basic property rights, it seems to have a flawed conception of libertarianism.
There is no contradiction, the passing of time can resolve the apparent contradiction.
I also am curious as to why rights are durable through periods of unconsciousness, such as sleep. If one were to permanently lose the ability to reason, he would lose self-ownership, yes? It is already established (according to your side) that if one has not yet achieved reason, they they have no self-ownership. So, if neither future nor past reason grants self-ownership, why should they together?
It has no right to reach such a stage, if you grant that it has no rights, as you already have. Given that, again, what have I done wrong? Have I aggressed?