Friday, October 17, 2008
Tragic views of property.
People are defined by things--- cards, systems. Everthing and everyone a commodity…ratings. I believe we as a society entitle ourselves to too much property these days. I find Locke’s views of property to be quite distinguished. The U.S. is a primary example of each person having too much property. We do not consider our body, as well as what we can use to be our sole property. Today, in our society, we are DEFINED by our property. We want as much of it as we can get. This I believe is a great tragedy, and according to Locke, almost an abomination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you are totally right that first we are now a society which judges based on the amount and kind of property we own. Also we forget that the one thing we truly own are our bodies, that is our sole property. TO go with that point I believe that we are allowed to do what we will with our body no matter the limit, mostly seen in the example of suicide. If I decide I want to stop my body from living, I being the sole owner of it can choose without restraint to kill myself. At the same time when a murder is committed the murder is essentially saying that the vitcim loses the ability to dictate what will happen to that body and is taking ownership of that person, which is wrong, because we have no right to tell another person what to do with there body.
Next the point that we are defined by our property is very alarming. If we are nothing but a collection of things then our actions, ethics, or knowledge is irrelevant, which is absurd. I will make another point later about how this is also related to Sartre and how it is our actions and our thoughts about ourselves that define us nothing more not even existence.
Joy, first, I want to say I agree with you about the tragedy of being defined by property. However, I don't believe being defined by property is worst in the United States or even in the modern era. In Latin America the disparity is probably the greatest. In the 20th Century, traditionally over two-thirds of the agricultural land was owned by only 1 percent of the population. Latin America today still has huge land inequalities. Also, I think that at no other time in history has land been LESS important. In ancient Greece and Rome you had to own land to even be able to vote. I think that sort of criteria lasted for over a thousand years. In the United States, needless to say you don’t need to own land to vote. The fact that people rent apartments show that people aren’t as tied to the land. And it is not like apartments are a sign of short-falling. I mean, maybe in certain areas houses are more prevalent and so apartments maybe looked down on . . . but it all depends where you are. In New York City, for example, even finding an apartment is considered a miracle. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I just want to serve as a fact checker.
Post a Comment