Везде

RAS PresidiumЧеловек Chelovek

  • ISSN (Print) 0236-2007
  • ISSN (Online) 2782-2893

Self-Ownership аnd Bodily Integrity

You can
PII
S0236200725020048-1
DOI
10.31857/S0236200725020048
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Konstantin E. Morozov
  • Occupation: Junior Researcher
  • Affiliation: Institute of Philosophy of the RAS
Volume/ Edition
Volume 36 / Issue number 2
Pages
73-89
Abstract
Which normative approach to bioethics can best explain and justify the widespread moral intuitions? Libertarians claim that it is the principle of self-ownership, which confers on all persons a natural property right over their bodies. Such a right explains the impermissibility of physical assault on the body, forced labor, and hard paternalism. But it also entails a number of intuitively implausible consequences, such as an unlimited right to sell one’s organs or oneself into slavery, absolute property rights in extrapersonal objects, the absence of positive duties to help others, and the impermissibility of even soft paternalism or taxation of labor. Libertarians believe that we must accept these consequences in order to preserve our own coherence. This article formulates and justifies an alternative approach, the principle of bodily integrity. Placed in the broader context of natural law theory, this principle explains and justifies the widespread intuitions without allowing for counterintuitive consequences. It argues that all people have a universal obligation not to intentionally damage basic human goods in their own lives and in the lives of others. Bodily integrity is one such basic good. The advantage of this principle is that it better fits our understanding of the moral status of children and people with cognitive disorders. The article then examines the implications of these approaches for organ donation. While self-ownership suggests radical reforms in this area, including the legalization of commercial markets in human organs, bodily integrity leads to more moderate legislation in this area, which is already in place in a number of countries.
Keywords
самопринадлежность телесная автономия телесная целостность либертарианство патернализм естественные права права собственности донорство биоэтика благополучие
Date of publication
13.11.2025
Year of publication
2025
Number of purchasers
0
Views
53

References

  1. 1. Закон РФ «О трансплантации органов и (или) тканей человека» от 22.12.1992 N 4180-1 // Консультант Плюс. 1992. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_4692/ (дата обращения: 21.09.2024).
  2. 2. Коэн Дж. Совместимы ли свобода и равенство? / пер. с англ. Д.С. Середы. М.: Свободное марксистское изд-во, 2020.
  3. 3. Локк Дж. Два трактата о правлении / пер. с англ. Е.С. Лагутина, Ю.В. Семенова. М., Челябинск: Социум, 2020.
  4. 4. Нозик Р. Анархия, государство и утопия / пер. с англ. Б. Пинскера. М., Челябинск: Социум, 2020.
  5. 5. Петтит Ф. Республиканизм: Теория свободы и государственного правления / пер. с англ. А. Яковлева. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2016.
  6. 6. Ротбард М. К новой свободе: Либертарианский манифест / пер. с англ. Б. Пинскера. М.: Новое изд-во, 2009.
  7. 7. Ротбард М. Этика свободы / пер. с англ. Ю. Аристова, В. Жилина. М.: Скрипториум, 2019.
  8. 8. Сингер П. Жизнь, которую вы можете спасти / пер. с англ. Т. Эйдельман11. М.: Медленные книги, 2019.
  9. 9. Скворцов А.А. Филиппа Фут: Проблема аборта и доктрина двойного эффекта // Философия и общество. 2018. № 2(87). С. 124–141. DOI: 10.30884/jfio/2018.02.09
  10. 10. Финнис Дж. Естественное право и естественные права / пер. с англ. В.П. Гайдамака, А.В. Панихиной. М.: ИРИСЭН, Мысль, 2012.
  11. 11. Хольм С., Льюис Дж. Аборты: аргументы pro et contra / пер. с англ. А.В. Нехаева // Омский научный вестник. Сер. Общество. История. Современность. 2024. Т. 9, № 2. С. 120–131. DOI: 10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131
  12. 12. Чалый В.А. Философские идеи Канта в политической теории Роберта Нозика // Кантовский сборник. 2014. № 2. С. 46–52. DOI: 10.5922/0207-6918-2014-2-4
  13. 13. A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries, ed. by H. Steiner, M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds. Oxf.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298991.001.0001
  14. 14. Bardon A. From Nozick to Welfare Rights: Self-Ownership, Property, and Moral Desert. Critical Review. 2000. Vol. 14, N 4. P. 481–501. DOI: 10.1080/08913810008443570
  15. 15. Block W.E. Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies. 2003. Vol. 17, N 2. P. 39–85.
  16. 16. Brennan J., van der Vossen B. The Myths of the Self-Ownership Thesis. The Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism, ed. by J. Brennan, B. van der Vossen, D. Schmidtz. N.Y.: Routledge, 2018. P. 199–211.
  17. 17. Bryan B. Duty-Sensitive Self-Ownership. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2019. Vol. 36, N 2. P. 264–283. DOI: 10.1017/s0265052519000487
  18. 18. Carter I. Self-Ownership and the Importance of the Human Body. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2019. Vol. 36, N 2. P. 94–115. DOI: 10.1017/s0265052519000384
  19. 19. Cataldo P.J. The Principle of Double Effect as Preserving Integral Goodness: A Brief Historical Overview. Health Care Ethics USA. 2022. P. 3–11.
  20. 20. Cholbi M.J. Kantian Paternalism and Suicide Intervention. Paternalism: Theory and Practice, ed. by C. Coons, M. Weber. Camb.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013. P. 115–134.
  21. 21. Cholbi M.J. Suicide Intervention and Non-Ideal Kantian Theory. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2002. Vol. 19, N 3. P. 245–259. DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.t01-1-00221
  22. 22. Christman J. The Myth of Property: Toward an Egalitarian Theory of Ownership. Oxf.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780195085945.001.0001
  23. 23. Cohen G.A. Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511521270
  24. 24. Crowe J. Natural Law and the Nature of Law. Camb.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019. DOI: 10.1017/9781108653237
  25. 25. Cudd A.E. Connected Self-Ownership and Our Obligations to Others. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2019. Vol. 36, N 2. P. 154–173. DOI: 10.1017/s0265052519000402
  26. 26. Fabré C. Whose Body Is It? Justice and the Integrity of the Person. Oxf.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008. DOI: 10.1093/0199289999.001.0001
  27. 27. Feser E. Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft. The Independent Review. 2000. Vol. 5, N 2. P. 219–235.
  28. 28. Frederick D. Voluntary Slavery. Las Torres de Lucca. 2014. Vol. 3, N 4. P. 115–137.
  29. 29. Fried B.H. Facing Up to Scarcity: The Logic and Limits of Nonconsequentialist Thought. Oxf.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2020. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198847878.001.0001
  30. 30. Goldstein J.D. New Natural Law Theory and the Grounds of Marriage. Social Theory and Practice. 2011. Vol. 37, N 3. P. 461–482. DOI: 10.5840/soctheorpract201137327
  31. 31. Grunebaum J.O. Autonomous Ownership. Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, ed. by P. Vallentyne, H. Steiner. N.Y.: Palgrave, 2000. P. 48–73.
  32. 32. Huemer M. Revisionary Intuitionism. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2008. Vol. 25, N 1. P. 368–392. DOI: 10.1017/s026505250808014x
  33. 33. Hurd H.M. The Moral Magic of Consent. Legal Theory. 1996. Vol. 2, N 2. P. 121–146.
  34. 34. Kershnar S. A Liberal Argument for Slavery. Journal of Social Philosophy. 2003. Vol. 34, N 4. P. 510–536. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9833.00198
  35. 35. Lippert-Rasmussen K. Against Self-Ownership: There Are No Fact-Insensitive Ownership Rights Over One’s Body. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 2008. Vol. 36, N 1. P. 86–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00125.x
  36. 36. Mack E. Nozickian Arguments for the More-than-Minimal State. The Cambridge Companion to Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, ed. by R.M. Bader, J. Meadowcroft. Camb.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011. P. 89–115.
  37. 37. Mack E. The Natural Right of Property. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2010. Vol. 27, N 1. P. 53–78. DOI: 10.1017/s0265052509990033
  38. 38. Mack E., Gaus G.F. Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism: The Liberty Tradition. Handbook of Political Theory, ed. by G.F. Gaus, C. Kukathas. L.: Sage, 2004. P. 115–130.
  39. 39. Murphy M.C. Natural Law and Practical Rationality. Camb.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001.
  40. 40. Narveson J. Libertarianism. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, ed. by H. LaFollette, I. Person. Hoboken: Blackwell Publ., 2013. P. 373–393.
  41. 41. Nussbaum M.C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Camb.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2011.
  42. 42. Olsthoorn J. Self-Ownership and Despotism: Locke on Property in the Person, Divine Dominium of Human Life, and Rights-Forfeiture. Social Philosophy & Policy. 2020. Vol. 36, N 2. P. 242–263. DOI: 10.1017/s0265052519000438
  43. 43. Radin M.J. Contested Commodities. Camb.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2001.
  44. 44. Sobel D. Backing Away from Libertarian Self-Ownership. Ethics. 2012. Vol. 123, N 1. P. 32–60. DOI: 10.1086/667863
  45. 45. Spafford J. Self‐Ownership and the Duty to Assist. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2022. Vol. 39, N 5. P. 857–869. DOI: 10.1111/japp.12595
  46. 46. Stanczyk L. Productive Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 2012. Vol. 40, N 2. P. 144–164. DOI: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01212.x
  47. 47. Steiner H. Left-Libertarianism. The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism, ed. by M. Zwolinski, B. Ferguson. N.Y.: Routledge, 2022. P. 229–240.
  48. 48. Sunstein C.R., Thaler R.H. Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review. 2003. Vol. 70, N 4. P. 1159–1202. DOI: 10.2307/1600573
  49. 49. Sunstein C.R., Thaler R.H. Nudge: Improving Decision About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. L.: Penguin Books, 2009.
  50. 50. Taylor R.S. A Kantian Defense of Self‐Ownership. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2004. Vol. 12, N 1. P. 65–78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00191.x
  51. 51. Taylor R.S. Self-Ownership and the Limits of Libertarianism. Social Theory and Practice. 2005. Vol. 31, N 4. P. 465–482. DOI: 10.5840/soctheorpract200531423
  52. 52. Taylor R.S. Self-Ownership and Transplantable Human Organs. Public Affairs Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 21, N 1. P. 89–107.
  53. 53. Teuber A. Kant’s Respect for Persons. Political Theory. 1983. Vol. 11, N 3. P. 369–392. DOI: 10.1177/0090591783011003004
  54. 54. Vallentyne P., Steiner H., Otsuka M. Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 2005. Vol. 33, N 2. P. 201–215. DOI: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00030.x
  55. 55. Varden H. Rawls vs. Nozick vs. Kant on Domestic Economic Justice. Kant and Social Policies, ed. by A. Faggion, A. Pinzani, N.S. Madrid. N.Y.: Palgrave, 2016. P. 93–123.
  56. 56. Wheeler S.C. Natural Property Rights as Bodily Rights. Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, ed. by P. Vallentyne, H. Steiner. N.Y.: Palgrave, 2000. P. 228–246.
  57. 57. Widerquist K. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No. N.Y.: Palgrave, 2013.
QR
Translate

Индексирование

Scopus

Scopus

Scopus

Crossref

Scopus

Higher Attestation Commission

At the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Scopus

Scientific Electronic Library