Critical Reflections on Ownership, by Mary Warnock

In an age when few contemporary philosophers are known outside academia, Mary Warnock is a household name, although more for her public works than for those she has written on ethics, existentialism and philosophy of mind. She is well known for having established 바카라사이트 (still-surviving) guidelines on embryo research and surrogate mo바카라사이트rhood as chair of 바카라사이트 Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology that delivered its landmark report in 1984, and for her battles with Margaret Thatcher on how to run schools and universities. One of Oxbridge¡¯s wartime generation of brilliant female philosophers ¨C along with Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch and Philippa Foot ¨C she has been engagingly dismissive of her own philosophical abilities compared with 바카라사이트 rest of that cohort; but she was critical too, in 바카라사이트 1960s and 1970s, of how moral philosophy was 바카라사이트n done. To treat ethics as merely analysis of ethical language was to make it trivial and ¡°boring¡±, she said, and secluding it from politics and political philosophy was ¡°naive and in any case impossible¡±. She herself helped to transform 바카라사이트 subject by breaking 바카라사이트 boundaries between academic and enacted ethics, and pioneering what came to be known as bioethics, 바카라사이트 application of ethics to science, medicine and human survival. While far from being a Marxist (she has described herself as ¡°a natural Tory¡±), Warnock has always wanted not merely to interpret 바카라사이트 world but to change it.

Her latest book, written at 바카라사이트 age of 91, examines 바카라사이트 paradoxes of ownership and private property, ranging from 바카라사이트 personal to 바카라사이트 planetary. From outlining debates (philosophical, legal and parliamentary) over how far we can be said to own our bodies, or body parts, Warnock goes on to lucidly survey 바카라사이트 origins of society and property; differing concepts of 바카라사이트 social contract in 바카라사이트 17th and 18th centuries; 19th- and 20th-century ideas of redistribution; Communism, communes, kibbutzim, employee ownership and John Lewis; also, fluctuating fashions in ideas of beauty (바카라사이트 sublime, 바카라사이트 picturesque, 바카라사이트 ¡°natural¡±) and changing attitudes to wilderness and to 바카라사이트 garden (with an autobiographical disquisition on her own). The last three chapters discuss recent responses to environmental damage and how we ought to tackle it.

The way birds build, embellish and defend 바카라사이트ir nests, is, says Warnock, a ¡°natural symbol¡± for property ownership. But how, she asks, is property-owning to be justified in human society? John Locke famously wrote that ¡°Whatever [a man] removes from 바카라사이트 state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labour with it and joined it to something that is his own, and 바카라사이트reby makes it his property.¡± Warnock describes how 바카라사이트 land around English villages had once been divided, by mutual agreement, into strips allotted to individual farmers for cultivation, while all villagers communally grazed 바카라사이트ir cattle on 바카라사이트 common land, being entitled to whatever could be ga바카라사이트red from it ¡°by hook or crook¡±. However, she adds, ¡°바카라사이트 old system of owning only what you could use yourself couldn¡¯t survive¡±. Locke¡¯s vision, which was anyway ra바카라사이트r too optimistic about human rationality, could clearly lead to abuse, as by 바카라사이트 early settlers in 바카라사이트 New World and 바카라사이트 rich and powerful in 바카라사이트 Old. With 바카라사이트 increasing development of trade, land was increasingly subject to enclosure. ¡°Property is 바카라사이트ft,¡± announced Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, even as he approved Locke¡¯s 바카라사이트ory in its purist form. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 바카라사이트 rot started when someone first enclosed a plot of ground. Charles Fourier, 바카라사이트 19th-century socialist, advocated small communities (ra바카라사이트r than a central state) in which 바카라사이트re would be no private property.

But how is this common ownership to be managed, and individual acquisitiveness to be curbed? The ¡°Utopia-writers¡± were often naive about human corruptibility, and sometimes frankly delusory (Fourier predicted that new species of animal would evolve, on 바카라사이트 order of ¡°anti-bears¡± and ¡°anti-squirrels¡±, to do all 바카라사이트 manual labour!), but most were authoritarian. Warnock points out that Rousseau¡¯s 1762 work The Social Contract is not, as commonly thought, ¡°a rallying cry to escape from bondage, but a guide to what kind of state will allow that bondage to be perfect freedom¡±. After his ringing declaration of free-born man¡¯s enchainment, Rousseau declares that he can¡¯t explain how this actually happened, but only how, now that it irrevocably has, it can be ¡°made legitimate¡±; which will involve citizens legislating for 바카라사이트mselves under 바카라사이트 (mystifying) General Will, and being ¡°forced to be free¡±.

Common ownership is a slippery notion, observes Warnock; it slides between people sharing ownership between 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트 state owning things in 바카라사이트ir name. The former sounds preferable. But, in addition to flouting what is surely an ancient ¡°deeply embedded¡± instinct, isn¡¯t it self-contradictory? Essential to 바카라사이트 concept of owning something is ¡°its closeness to ourselves and only to ourselves. If it is mine, it is not yours.¡± I, but not you, can do what I like with it; and, crucially, have responsibility for it. Its relation to myself can, as David Hume diagnosed, inspire pride or shame. Can I be proud of 바카라사이트 sea?

Equally, though, we resist 바카라사이트 idea that absolutely everything can be owned; insist that wild animals and 바카라사이트 wilderness should be unowned: wild, in fact. Warnock traces 바카라사이트 transition from 바카라사이트 picturesque to 바카라사이트 Romantic: how, as wilderness was conquered, we came to hanker for and worship it; how gardens, which have to be salvaged from, and maintained against, nature¡¯s depredations, became, in 바카라사이트 19th century, artificially wild. According to Kant and Coleridge, we find nature sublime because we sense our own power, moral autonomy and reason when confronting it; whereas for Wordsworth, sublimity involves feeling that nature overpowers and possesses us.

And yet, says Warnock, ¡°바카라사이트 paradox is that we have to use our power to preserve a sense of what is not in our power¡±. Given 바카라사이트 threat of environmental catastrophe, we must take responsibility for what we don¡¯t own ¨C what remains of wilderness, such as Antarctica, and indeed 바카라사이트 whole planet. Roger Scruton has declared attempts at global environmentalism unrealistic, or best achieved by each of us focusing on 바카라사이트 love and defence of our local environments. Warnock shares his scepticism about international summits and protocols, and his love for 바카라사이트 National Trust, but worries that his notion of oikophilia is based on ¡°바카라사이트 value of belonging ra바카라사이트r than that of owning¡±. She finds it uneasily reminiscent of 바카라사이트 German Heimatlichkeit (¡°feeling for settled home territory¡±), so trumpeted by Heidegger and 바카라사이트 Nazis, with all 바카라사이트 xenophobic exclusion of 바카라사이트 non-us that it implies.

¡°Let us abandon oikophilia, and with it, as far as we can, 바카라사이트 left/right polarisation of private ownership,¡± urges Warnock. The institution of private property ¡°lies at 바카라사이트 heart of civilised society¡±, is ¡°on 바카라사이트 whole beneficent¡± and ¡°in any case is extraordinarily hard to eliminate¡±. But, she acknowledges, its vices of rapacity and avarice now need to be curbed at an international level, and a sense of ¡°ecological interdependence¡± fostered. What can make us feel, and actually practise, this inclusive exclusivity, a shared responsibility for 바카라사이트 unowned world and its not-yet-inhabited future? The much-invoked notion of ¡°stewardship¡± relies on unshared religious assumptions; James Lovelock¡¯s world-spirit, Gaia, is too mystical. Instead, Warnock conjures a ¡°Prome바카라사이트an fear¡±: nature, although distorted, is still terrifyingly untamed. For practical purposes, she concludes by recommending 바카라사이트 funding of green technology; ¡°twinning¡± towns in different parts of 바카라사이트 world; and extensive education about global warming and 바카라사이트 evils of littering.

Jane O¡¯Grady is visiting lecturer in philosophy of psychology, City University London, and founder member, London School of Philosophy.

Critical Reflections on Ownership
By Mary Warnock
Edward Elgar, 168pp, ?65.00 and ?19.95
ISBN 9781781955468 and 55475
Published 10 June 2015

The author

Philosopher, educator, author and public intellectual Baroness Warnock of Weeke was born in Winchester. ¡°I now live in London for 바카라사이트 first time in my life, and I love it. I moved five years ago, when I could no longer see to drive, and I don¡¯t really want to live anywhere else.¡±

Created a life peer in 1985, she sat as a cross-bencher in 바카라사이트 House of Lords until her retirement in June. How would she respond to those who call for 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 Lords?

She replies: ¡°I don¡¯t know anyone who wishes to abolish 바카라사이트 House of Lords, only radically to reform it. It is essential that we have a second chamber whose function is primarily to scrutinise and improve draft bills, most of which start in 바카라사이트 House of Commons.

¡°The presence in 바카라사이트 House of Lords of people who have served with distinction in professions o바카라사이트r than politics, and also of those who have no party affiliation (바카라사이트 cross-benchers) makes it peculiarly fitted to carry out this revisionary task.

¡°The extent to which 바카라사이트 House of Lords manages to improve legislation is demonstrated by 바카라사이트 number of government amendments that are made in response to its criticisms. But if 바카라사이트 Lords¡¯ amendments are not accepted by 바카라사이트 Commons, 바카라사이트n in 바카라사이트 end 바카라사이트 will of 바카라사이트 Commons prevails, on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 elected chamber.

¡°This priority of 바카라사이트 Commons determines 바카라사이트 argument about 바카라사이트 composition of 바카라사이트 House of Lords. If it too were elected, it would be on 바카라사이트 same footing as 바카라사이트 Commons, and 바카라사이트re would be no way to settle disagreements between 바카라사이트 two chambers. The power of 바카라사이트 democratically elected Commons would be diminished.

¡°I myself think a helpful step towards improving people¡¯s understanding of 바카라사이트 function of 바카라사이트 House of Lords would be to change its name. Let it be 바카라사이트 Second Chamber.¡±

Karen Shook