Critical Thinking Discussion

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 14th, 2016

Question description

Specifically, what are the implications for your position that you are related to yourself as property given the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights ( Burnor & Raley)? To which of these distinctions does 'property' traditionally belong? To which would your notion of the 'property-self' now belong? Notice from the reading, that your view, if correct, would then imply that you did not have an inalienable right to yourself. That would mean that your right to yourself or your person could then be transferred or sold to another. This view can thus be seen as one of the central and necessary assumptions of the systems of traditional chattel-slavery and also of present day wage-slavery. If we assume that all slavery is morally wrong, then is this wrongness any indication of the plausibility of viewing the self as property?

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: UC Berkeley
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors