Perhaps I’m being a bit dense here but I have some difficulty in seeing a real asymmetry here—though do see that these are commonly understood views. They seem to be something along the line of logical fallacies like if p then q; q therefore p and then noting that we have q but not finding p is some asymmetry.
From the PR view you are suggesting I’m wondering about the concept of killing and owning oneself. I would think the moral/ethical asymmetry is related to killing others versus killing oneself. If we “own” ourselves then we can make the PR argument about not killing others—just like not taking their car or money. But that view implies we can kill ourselves (or sell ourselves into slavery for that matter). That we have constraints on killing our self seems to be the asymmetric setting from a PR view.
Perhaps I’m being a bit dense here but I have some difficulty in seeing a real asymmetry here—though do see that these are commonly understood views. They seem to be something along the line of logical fallacies like if p then q; q therefore p and then noting that we have q but not finding p is some asymmetry.
From the PR view you are suggesting I’m wondering about the concept of killing and owning oneself. I would think the moral/ethical asymmetry is related to killing others versus killing oneself. If we “own” ourselves then we can make the PR argument about not killing others—just like not taking their car or money. But that view implies we can kill ourselves (or sell ourselves into slavery for that matter). That we have constraints on killing our self seems to be the asymmetric setting from a PR view.