Journal of Political Philosophy, EarlyView.

Common practices such as donating blood or selling hair assume rights of disposal over oneself that are similar to, if not indistinguishable from, property rights. However, a simple view of self‐ownership fails to capture relevant moral differences between parts of a person and other objects. In light of this, we require some account of the continuity in the form of ownership rights a person has over herself and other objects, which also acknowledges the normative differences between constitutive parts of a (...) person, on the one hand, and external objects, on the other. This paper provides such an account by arguing that there are reasons internal to a general justification of property rights to limit the extent of powers included in ownership of different kinds of object, depending on how the person is situated in relation to them. Rejecting a typical Hohfeldian view of property as a univocal, gradable concept allows us to make space for a new approach to property and self‐ownership: one which can make sense of various uses of the body as property without entailing that our relation to those parts is exhaustively characterised by an ordinary property right. (shrink)

Is selling sex a service like any other? Philosophers have given a range of answers to this question: (a) sex has a specific value that is debased by commercial markets in sex; (b) sex work is a service like any other; (c) markets in sex perpetuate structural systems of inequality. This article takes seriously the suggestion that there is something special about sex itself which raises a specific set of concerns when traded for money. The challenge is to explain this (...) without drawing on contentious essentialist claims about the value of sex. It proceeds by analysing a parallel between sexual promises and selling sexual consent. On an expectational theory of promising, commercial agreements to sex generate obligations in a way that is normatively analogous to sexual promises. Understanding the normative release conditions for such assurance‐providing agreements provides a way of analysing the justifiability of various ways of enforcing such agreements. I argue that the release conditions for agreements involving sex are not conducive to being codified under typical forms of service contract. As such, regulation aimed at legitimising sex work must provide adequate protections to workers without codifying it under typical forms of service contract. (shrink)