-
If you're an idiot like that Autolykos guy, and don't know what words "use" and "possession" mean, that's your problem, not mine.
-
LOL! Ok: Communicative reality includes argumentation ethics. You have failed to show how a social convention is not a social convention. I have shown you in a nutshell that argumentation ethics are a priori, and constitute undeniable objective morality. What I fail to see is how the general concept of ownership being valid necessarily depends on the
-
Exclusive use does not imply ownership. Take rental cars. During the period of time I have agreed to, I have exclusive use over a product which I do not own. Exclusive use is given when I own the property, not simply by my posession of that property. Contradictory. You say correctly that exclusive use doesn't imply ownership. Therefore, self-ownership
-
Right to exclusive use is contained in both right to possession and right to property. The basic difference is in that the right to possession means the right to exclusive use until that use lasts, and right to property is the right to indefinite exclusive use regardless of whether your using it or not, until you renounce it.
-
The main problem with Papirius is that he has very little foundation in philosophy You saying it doesn't make it so. This is clear because of his complete misunderstanding of various nihilist beliefs. " Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism ) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For
-
Can I get a clarification on what the concepts 'use' and 'abandon'? No.
-
You arent using your body unless you are using it, keeping the couch from floating away doesnt count. Body is used for living in it, where we could identify the mind as living in it.
-
So, is me taking a sandwich you set on the table while you get up to get mustard a legitimate act by me? Until I see arguments how can property follow from self-possession, I'd say yes. And I do not understand the self-possession of one's own body/murder issue. I keep a sandwich in my hand and eat it. You come about and take it from me. It is
-
So in your self-possession theory (which I have yet to see explained), I have explained it. Right to possession is a right to exclusive use during that use. Meaning the right to deny anyone else any interence with that use and the thing being used. the would-be murderer did not take possession of your body by killing you (as he could with a sandwich
-
I don't see anything adressing my writing in there.