Posted below is Ethics Part 2. It contains an argument for some objective ethics, which is where Frank Apisa was going with our earlier conversation.
Below I have written four arguments that supports that claim more explicitly.
In order to succeed in this challenge I will need to establish that there is something that ought to be, as an objective statement, with a level of evidence that supports my claim more strongly than its denial.
My claim: People own themselves.
Definitions:
To own: to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion. To have the right to make decisions as to how the thing will be used.
This is by nature an objective claim, as the right to use oneself precludes using oneself to make subjective opinions.
------------------
Argument 1
------------------
1. One should assume that ethics exist:
"...we are left with two options: there is no meaning in life, or there is meaning.
If there is no meaning, then we lose nothing to assume that there is.
But if there is meaning, then we may do wrong if we assume that there isn't.
Therefore, without clear evidence to the contrary, it is ethically necessary to act under the assumption that there is meaning to life and there are such things as ethics."
2. One should assume that ethics are knowable:
Either ethics are knowable or they aren't
If they are not knowable, whether we believe they are knowable or not has no effect on whether we know them. It does not matter either way.
If they are knowable, and we believe they are not, we will not know and follow them, and may do wrong.
If they are knowable, and we believe that they are, we may discover and follow them, and may do right.
Therefore we should assume ethics are knowable.
3. If ethics are knowable, the means to know the truth value of ethical statements is through reason.
Ethical statements entail comprehension of possible future actions, as well as the means to compare them.
4. Human beings capable of reason are morally obligated to use their reason to discover ethical values.
5. Ethical reasoning cannot be delegated only to some people.
It is possible that one person's ethical instructions to another may be in error.
The person receiving ethical instruction must filter the instruction through their capacity to reason to distinguish between truth and error, in the same way they must filter all other sources.
6. To discover ethical truths and to act ethically requires self-ownership.
In order to use one's faculty of reason, one must use oneself. If one ought to reason, then one ought to use oneself. Therefore each person has a right to themselves.
In order to perform the discovered ethical acts, one must use oneself. If one ought to act ethically, then one ought to use oneself. Therefore each person has a right to themselves.
7. Therefore, each person has a right to themselves
------------------
Argument 2
------------------
1. Each person is inhabiting, and therefore using their body for the duration of their lives.
2. Each person is not inhabiting, and therefore not using the body of another person to the same extent.
3. Therefore, the person with the greatest claim to themselves is themselves.
------------------
Argument 3
------------------
1. The person who will experience the consequences of the use of their body and person is themselves.
2. Other people will not experience the consequences of the use of their body or person to the same extent.
3. Therefore, each person has a greater interest in owning themselves, and has a greater right.
------------------
Argument 4
------------------
1. Each person either wholly owns himself or he does not.
2. If he does not, either one group partially or wholly owns another group, or everyone partially or wholly owns each other.
3. If one group owns another, this violates the universal ethic.
There must be some differentiating factor that creates a greater claim of some people over others.
In the absence of that evidence, each person must be considered equally as a moral agent.
4. If everyone owns everyone else, it would not be functionally possible for everyone to surveille each other and depend on consensus to know what to do and could not survive.
If everyone dies, no one will be able to act ethically.
Everyone dying is not an ethically preferable outcome.
5. A person being owned by others is either morally unsubstantiated or functionally impossible.
6. Therefore each person wholly owns himself.
=======================================
-Part Two - Rights-
With this proper understanding of our fellow man, certain rights necessarily follow. A right is a domain of authority. Ownership means the right to decide how a thing is used.
Life
The person who has the greatest and most natural claim to you is you. You are, after all, in possession of yourself. Those things without which you would no longer be you are your essential features. They include the body's vital functions, sentience, and will. If you do not have yourself, you have nothing at all.
Either each person wholly owns himself or he does not. If he does not, either one group partially or wholly owns another group, or everyone partially or wholly owns each other. If one group owns another, this would violate the universal ethic, as it does not apply equally to all people. If everyone owns everyone else, it would not be functionally possible for everyone to surveille each other and depend on consensus to know what to do and could not survive. Therefore the most natural and only possible moral option is that each person owns themselves.
Property
Authority is through authorship. Property is an extension of self through time, your ingenuity and energy poured into matter. The three ways a person can come to have a greater claim than anyone else over a piece of property is to 1) be the first one to claim it and mix it with your labor, 2) agree with the previous owner that you may own it, and 3) claim and use property that has been abandoned. Theft deprives you of a part of your past, present, and future. It takes your past the time and heart poured into your creations, your present ability to enjoy your property, and the future that you have sacrificed your past to procure.
When property is used in such a way that goes against the will of the rightful owner, this is called murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, etc. In the same way that a person has the right to "use force" to control those things within their domain--their life and property, there is also the right to use force to "return" property unjustly used by someone who is not its owner. To set things right again, the person who did the harm must make their victim whole as much as humanly possible, by paying restitution or some other means. This process is protected from abuse by being encased in a system of "due process", or proving the who is the victim and victimizer, and what is the remedy. This is where just law comes from.
"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10)
