Creator-Owner: A Concept in our Thought
In an earlier post I had mentioned that traditional theists believe in a Creator-Owner. I also mentioned that this is a point at which atheists probably disagree with quite strongly. My intent is not to prove the thesis of Creator-Owner. All I am intending to do is point out that many people believe it already. Those who believe it already, yet denouce it when it is a part of theistic belief are being inconsistent. Those who do not believe it and denouce it without argument are being narrow-minded. If a significant portion of people believe something, then the thesis is not obviously false. Therefore, it must be refuted through argument if one wishes to show that it is false.
There are many places at which a belief in Creator-Owner shows up. This belief states that mere creation of something is also enough to show ownership of something, and that one may do as one likes with what one owns. A group may not agree with both of these claims, but when they are conjoined, they form the Creator-Owner concept.
I will begin with the right to use property as one desires. This is a point that conservatives and libertarians agree on. It is also one of the defenses used by those who are pro-choice. They believe that a woman owns her body, what is inside her body is owned by her; therefore, she can do as she pleases with it. Anarchists also share this belief, because they believe that the existence of the government is an infringement of individual rights. Since property rights are part of an individual's rights, an individual is permitted to do whatever he pleases with his property. This only covers the right side of the political divide. This belief can also be found amoung the left as well.
Many amoung the left believe that the government it the ultimate owner of everything. They believe that the "right to property" is constructed by the government. Therefore, one ought to obey the government's wishes about one's property, because the government ultimately owns it. There are some environmentalists who believe that Nature owns itself. Therefore, we should let Nature do as it pleases with itself and interfere as little as possible.
Now for the first part of this clause. A lot of those who champion copyright laws against downloading activities will make statements about how the individual owns the work, because he created it. Marx believed that a worker owned the results of his work, because he created it. He writes about factory environments as places in which this natural end of human creation is perverted, because it is not treated as owned. Some of those who critisize slavery also believe this. They write about how slaves own themselves, and own what they create; therefore, it is wrong for that slavers to steal what the slaves have made. So beliefs that assume this sort of clause are quite common.
It may be objected that some of these people do not explicity believe in either thesis. This is quite true. However, these people do implicitly believe this thesis, if I am viewing their arguments charitably. It is also quite true that some of these same people may object when I apply their beliefs to religious beliefs. However, these beliefs are either true all of the time, or none of the time. Having said this, the fact that these beliefs are significantly numerous says nothing about their truth. What it does say it that we ought to take these beliefs seriously and if we disagree then we should formulate an argument against them.
There are many places at which a belief in Creator-Owner shows up. This belief states that mere creation of something is also enough to show ownership of something, and that one may do as one likes with what one owns. A group may not agree with both of these claims, but when they are conjoined, they form the Creator-Owner concept.
I will begin with the right to use property as one desires. This is a point that conservatives and libertarians agree on. It is also one of the defenses used by those who are pro-choice. They believe that a woman owns her body, what is inside her body is owned by her; therefore, she can do as she pleases with it. Anarchists also share this belief, because they believe that the existence of the government is an infringement of individual rights. Since property rights are part of an individual's rights, an individual is permitted to do whatever he pleases with his property. This only covers the right side of the political divide. This belief can also be found amoung the left as well.
Many amoung the left believe that the government it the ultimate owner of everything. They believe that the "right to property" is constructed by the government. Therefore, one ought to obey the government's wishes about one's property, because the government ultimately owns it. There are some environmentalists who believe that Nature owns itself. Therefore, we should let Nature do as it pleases with itself and interfere as little as possible.
Now for the first part of this clause. A lot of those who champion copyright laws against downloading activities will make statements about how the individual owns the work, because he created it. Marx believed that a worker owned the results of his work, because he created it. He writes about factory environments as places in which this natural end of human creation is perverted, because it is not treated as owned. Some of those who critisize slavery also believe this. They write about how slaves own themselves, and own what they create; therefore, it is wrong for that slavers to steal what the slaves have made. So beliefs that assume this sort of clause are quite common.
It may be objected that some of these people do not explicity believe in either thesis. This is quite true. However, these people do implicitly believe this thesis, if I am viewing their arguments charitably. It is also quite true that some of these same people may object when I apply their beliefs to religious beliefs. However, these beliefs are either true all of the time, or none of the time. Having said this, the fact that these beliefs are significantly numerous says nothing about their truth. What it does say it that we ought to take these beliefs seriously and if we disagree then we should formulate an argument against them.
posted by Matthew at 12:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home