Greetings,
In John Locke's Second Treatise, he argues for a certain conception of property rights and ethical ownership. You can read a relevant chapter of his work by clicking here. While there are several strong reasons to accept what Locke proposes, those who would do so ought to be able to deal with a few issues that may generate tension. That's not to say that these issues are insurmountable, per se, but rather than a coherent Lockean ought to be able to respond to them. I will try to mention a few possible issues below. Feel free to argue for your position or simply list your thoughts in the comments.
1. Assume that a corporation, Acme Co., has an employee, Moriarty, who is hired to cut down a tree that would potentially be in the way of the anvil plant that they are planning to construct. This land has never been claimed, and no one contests Moriarty's-- or, by extension, Acme's-- presence. Moriarty cuts down the wood. Per Locke, who owns the wood? Is Locke right?
2. Assume that Acme has entered into the music business. They hire a musician, Moriarty II, to produce music for them. A college student, Jack Sherman, downloads this music without the consent of Acme-- although, with the consent of Moriarty II. Per Locke, did Jack steal Acme's intellectual property? Did he steal Moriarty II's intellectual property? Is there such thing as intellectual property? Is Locke right?
3. Assume that Acme has generated a computer that strings together every possible combination of musical notes and lyrics-- and also strings together every possible combination of sequences of musical notes and lyrics, up to 45 minutes in length. It has an entire continent filled with speakers, stacked high to the sky, and each speaker plays a combination. Per Locke, does Acme thus own every song up to 45 minutes in length that had not been created before the computer did its work?
4. Assume that Acme has created biological life-- and it looks like a human, has the genetic composition of a human, and seems to age like a human. It was not contested that Acme owned the base materials it generated the biological lifeform, which it calls Moriarty IV, from. Per Locke, does it own that human? Is Locke right?
5. Assume that, while on the job, an employee, Moriarty V, dies. Acme immediately uses his body for lunchroom cafeteria meat. His relatives protest. Per Locke, did Acme have the right to Moriarty's body? Is Locke right?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Challenges for Locke's Idea of Property Rights
Posted by Zach Sherwin at 9:01 AM
Labels: club meeting, moriarty, political philosophy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
1. If the wood is owned at all, it would be owned by Moriarty, and by extension Acme. However, no real labor has been invested in the log yet. It is still in a raw state as a natural resource. If the log is laid to rot, this action could be considered harmful and Moriarty would have not won ownership. But if then Moriarty uses the resource for a worthy cause, say a carving or a piece of furniture, that outweighs its use in the ecological community of the forest, then ownership would have in fact been won by the investment of labor in the changing of the log from a raw resource into something else more orderly.
2. If Moriarty is working for Acme, he does not have the right to allow Jack to download the music.
3. Labor was involved in the creation of the computer, but not in the creation of the songs themselves because the action of creation is the action of selecting one thing from another and the computer does not do this. Acme certainly owns the sound of all the songs, however, but that's not exactly something someone can claim exclusive use of.
4. Absolutely. This is not new. Parents own their children until their children start living on their own, performing labor and claiming ownership of their own bodies. Thus this company would own the child through its childhood, but the child would eventually go its own way as it got older just as any child does.
5. The company did not own Moriarty; it employed him. To the extent anyone owns him besides himself, his family owns him. Thus, when he no longer is alive to claim ownership of his own body, his family are the rightful owners.
Kristian,
Thanks for the comments. Are those your personal opinions, or what you think Locke would say?
My challenge is whether Locke can respond to each of these in a way that we would consider satisfactory. Maybe he could; maybe he wouldn't have a problem. However, I'm fairly positive that Locke would disagree with you, particularly on (5.). I don't see why Locke would consider the family of the deceased to own the body, considering his thoughts on ownership.
Post a Comment