Give three philosophical implications of the statement.?

Question

Give three philosophical implications of the statement "man's ownership of his dog is not the same as his ownership of his body"

Answer 1

A dog is an animal that is disposable in many cultures, a dog is his to buy and sell, not true of his own body.

How a man treats or mistreats his pet often predicates how he is viewed , whereas how he treats himself rarely is.

Man is often kinder to his pet and better to them than he is to himself.

Answer 2

It implies that 'a man' is is some way separate from his body, this has strong implications for personal identity. It suggest that a person's identity resides in something other than their body; ie. their mind or personality. This suggest a dualistic approach-that the mind and body are separate.

The statement also calls us to question whether it is possible to have ownership of another living being and how much independence constitutes control.

If ownership means control over your own body, ie. intention to act followed by an action, then surely the dog is the only thing which has ownership of its own body.

Answer 3

A man can own a dog.
A man can own his body.
There is a difference between a man's ownership of a dog and the ownership of his own body.