Self-Ownership

The principle of self-ownership asserts that every person has a property in his or her own person and the labor of his or her body. Ever since the 17th-century political philosopher John Locke argued for self-ownership on the ground of self-preservation, many political philosophers, economists, and business ethicists have debated the meaning, extent, and political implications of selfownership. The basic tenet of classical liberalism in the 18th and early 19th centuries was the idea that individuals owned themselves. To protect individuals'freedom to develop their talents and life plans without intervention, many classical liberals argued that maintenance of law and order and protection of individual liberty were the unique functions of government. Economic liberals in that era, in particular, argued that individuals should structure their economic life without intervention from government. In the latter half of the 20th century, libertarians adopted many of these arguments to reject most state interventions and to ground the right to private property. There are four general features to the libertarian thesis of self-ownership. First, self-owning persons are the rightful owners of their own person and faculties. Second, persons have the power of disposal and transfer—that is, a right to freely sell, rent, or exchange their labor [Page 1882]and talents as commodities in an open market. Third, persons have the right to accrue private ownership of the fruit of such labor and talents and not be forced to dispose of their possessions in the absence of prior contractual arrangements. Fourth, persons who respect the similar rights of others have an absolute right to themselves and their properties.

The idea of having ownership rights over oneself may initially seem counterintuitive, if it suggests that there is a distinct thing, the self, which one owns, since it implies that we can treat ourselves as disposable objects and not as persons with intrinsic value. Many have pointed out that treating ourselves as properties that we “own” and can dispose of may counter the Kantian idea of respecting our own dignity and humanity. The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant argues that freedom is one innate right that belongs to all rational persons, who have inherent value and should be their own masters. Kant does not think that such freedom implies that one is the “owner” of oneself, if that implies one is free to dispose of or exploit oneself. He believes that we have to respect our own humanity and rejects any thesis of self-ownership that denies the existence of self-regarding duties.

The question of when one's action may violate one's own dignity and humanity is a complex one. Some believe that organ sales, prostitution, commercial surrogacy, and voluntary enslavement all treat human bodies as mere means, and a thesis of self-ownership that allows such transactions violates humanity and contradicts the idea of being master of oneself because one is relinquishing control. Some also believe that suicide and euthanasia, which seem to be allowed under the thesis of having ownership rights over oneself, destroy one's life and go against the duty of self-preservation. However, others disagree that commodification of body parts is categorically different from the use of one's labor or mental powers for income. Some believe that it is an expression of being the master of oneself when one transfers the power to others. Other critics also believe that the freedom to end one's life, especially in certain painful and terminal medical conditions, protects and preserves one's dignity.

...