Discussion – The Ethics of Self-Ownership

Discussion – The Ethics of Self-Ownership

In as much as the view held by John Locke on ownership of the body, mind, and ideas is valuable and furthers the goal of personal autonomy and dignity, it opens the floodgates for ethical concerns relating to self-harm or social inequality. This famous claim by John Locke avers that every human being has property in [their] person or, in other words, people have ownership of their bodies, minds, and ideas, much like they have ownership of things (Locke, 1980). This socially influential notion of self-ownership has deeply influenced the fashioning of modern conceptions of personal liberty and individual rights. Locke’s view, in my opinion, is correct mainly because it acknowledges the fundamental autonomy of individuals and their right to control their own lives. However, while this perspective promotes personal freedom, it also carries significant ethical implications that complicate its straightforward application.

First, Locke’s concept of self-ownership strongly supports individual autonomy. When one belongs to oneself, that means one has an inborn right to free choice regarding their body, thoughts, and actions (Locke, 1980). This can be combined with modern-minded considerations of human rights, in which personal freedom is considered to be of prime value. People should be allowed to decide on matters that pertain to their health, education, and spiritual or religious beliefs, free from coercion. Locke’s theory underpins this form of ethic, given his regard for the individual as his agent and thus deserving respect for autonomy.

However, this would be the point where the ethical ramifications of Locke’s position become a bit more complex as individuals balance the consequences of absolute self-ownership. If people fully own their bodies and minds, does this mean one may do with them whatever they wish, even to such an extent as would involve self-harm or exploitation? Under the interpretation of Locke’s theory, there are no clear-cut boundaries that determine when individual ownership might be curtailed for the sake of a person’s well-being or the good of society (Locke, 1980). For instance, some may claim that they have the right to do harmful things with their body because it is theirs, but that opens up an interesting question regarding the extent of self-ownership.

In conclusion, self-ownership, in Locke’s view, provides a substantial ground on which personal autonomy and dignity can be promoted: a person has a right over their body and mind. At the same time, such a position also provokes ethical dilemmas like those concerning self-harm or social inequality. Therefore, though Locke’s perspective of Locke on self-ownership may be valid, it has to be brought into balance by ethical considerations that equally serve the good of people and the justice of society.

References

Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1690).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Discussion – The Ethics of Self-Ownership

Do not use AI to generate or edit your post. Do not use AI to generate or edit your responses to your peers.

Locke famously argues that each person “has a property in [their] own person.” In other words, Locke thinks that you (your body, your ideas, your mind, etc.) are your own property. Do you think this is correct? Why or why not? What are the ethical implications of this view of “ownership”?