他们最近在纽约制定了一项法律，限制软饮料的销售，理由是它们对你的健康有害。似乎5个黑人女性中就有4个超重。在非洲这样的地方，食物供应可能不可靠，这是有道理的。超重的人不太可能挨饿。事实证明，大多数黑人男人都喜欢臀部有一点肉的女人。所以这也有文化的一面，不仅仅是健康问题。支持像纽约这样的法律几乎可以被视为种族主义。现在，在美国，食物供应比在非洲可靠得多。这大概是因为我们的技术——农业技术等等。只要科技不断进步，我们就安全。 But there are no guarantees about that. For instance, we are (according to some) about halfway through the world's supply of oil already. All those overweight black ladies might turn out to have an adaptive advantage sometime in the unforeseeable future. So this question is not as simple as it looks.
On the blood transfusion issue, suppose the dying person is O. J. Simpson and the person with the right blood type is Nicole Brown Simpson's sister. I don't think anyone could fault her for denying him the transfusion. These moral questions often seem so complicated they don't really have a right answer.

This may raise a firestorm---but you do not need to allow it, if you choose not to do so. I think vaccinations are necessary, as are their known (and unknown) risks. Here is the deal, according to doctors; immunologists; and little me: We have eradicated smallpox, pretty much; poliomyelitis; diptheria; whooping cough (pertussis);varella (sp?-measles); chicken pox, and a host of other pestilences too numerous to list here. Some of the other nasties such as bubonic plague; cholera; dengue fever; and leprosy are stubbornly resistant. But, they too may ultimately succumb---or not. Ebola is really scary, as are all haemorragic (spelling, again?)fevers.
我的观点?医学已经让我们更安全了。忽视这一点的人要么是陷入了某种文化迷信，要么就是没有注意到这一点。我不会挑出任何一个群体来批评——我不需要这样做，因为大多数受过教育的人都知道，有些人对现代医学有意见。可惜,。
I got my flu shot today. I will be 65 years old in January(tap,tap on hardened cellulose). Flu shots have not killed me yet. And, neither has the flu. Or smallpox;whooping cough;polio;herpes zoster; tetanus; pneumonia; diptheria;
——我可以继续说下去，关于在我的身体里放置了超过65种预防性毒药。现在来吧。人聪明。而且聪明到可以利用现代科学的优势和保护。不是吗?我想在离开这个尘世之前去一趟非洲。但说实话，埃博拉把我吓坏了。我想我会待在家里。
Best to All,
Neuman.

亲爱的TC。我不知道我侮辱了谁，也不知道你觉得我不尊重了谁。也许我受过教育，也许没有。不管真的。我就讲到这里，让别人来决定谁是这里的反动分子。祝你今天愉快。纽曼，通话完毕。

Typhus is gone (remember Typhoid Mary?), smallpox is gone, polio, measles and many others, gone. Even tooth decay, largely a thing of the past since flouridation. Government had us install indoor plumbing. It forced electricity to be made available in rural areas. It forced doctors to show proof of competence. Employers used to argue that accepting employment implied consent to the hazards involved, even where death was common. Is it government intrusion to prevent employers from taking liberties with employees' bodily choices? Is this, after all, just another anarchy question? There's lots of debate yet about what methods work best to reduce addiction, but does this mean there is no public interest is limiting the crime and strain addiction is on the public and on public resources?
但一个更基本的问题是，这个问题是否适合一般性讨论?个人决定的大多数公共卫生后果可以在公共基础上解决，产生足够的依从性，将问题降低到一个可管理的水平，而不强加给任何人，只需要让大多数人相信某种行为或替代方案的智慧。
But when we walk into a store and are instantly bombarded by every tactic the most devious and highly trained experts, armed with sophisticated experimental data, can inflict upon us, is this really a matter of individual choice? The marketers are certainly trying to see to it is is not. To get too individualistic in this is to go unilaterally disarmed against a phalanx of interest in undermining our individuality.
So, is this a vexed question?

这个想法不适用于肾脏，因为我们没有一个“额外的”肾脏，我们有两个，因为随着年龄的增长，有一些条件和疾病会影响一个肾脏，而可能不会影响另一个，因为肾脏的功能对生命如此重要，我们需要冗余。自愿捐肾的人，通常是给家人的人，是在为自己未来的健康承担风险。这是自愿的!

规范堕胎意味着我们在说，女性必须把自己的身体服从于国家，而男性则不会。我们在哲学上对此有何看法?

I think your post brings up two important, and importantly different, lenses through which to consider the problem of regulating bodies. The first you mention at the beginning of your post: the state. Here, the thought seems to be that the state has certain compelling interests, which, when demonstrated under sufficient scrutiny, allow it to justifiably interfere in areas otherwise off-limits to it. For example, I would argue that the state has a compelling interest in its citizens remaining free of illness. In fact, I would think that most people would agree with this claim. The disagreement comes when we consider whether some specific measure is appropriately suited at serving that interest. Does taxing unhealthy food serve that interest enough, for example, for us to justify it? What about mandating vaccinations?
The other lens is that of morality, which you mention toward the end of your post. Morality is not an institution, per se, so it is more difficult to speak of it infringing upon our rights. We can, however, ask if it generates the sort of force we think it does in reference to our bodies. But, the role of our bodies in this question seems misplaced. The question, I think, should not be whether morality can regulate our bodies; that seems to put the cart before the horse. Rather, the question should always concern what we ought to do and what doing so might say of our philosophical orientations. If, under this scheme, we find ourselves required to give blood, then we can take issue with it on the grounds of giving blood, not on the grounds of regulating bodies, which by itself is too broad a category to be meaningful. On this view, one might call forgoing vaccination immoral because in doing so we do not consider the agency of those whom we might be affecting (or, rather, infecting) further down the line.

Show opened today with Ken asking what Philosopher would even think to ask the question, "Who owns my body?"
But only a male philosopher who has no real concept of what women have been dealing with with for thousands of years would find the question obscure, unique or strange. Women have been trying to assert control over their own bodies and reproductive capacities since the dawn of time. It's one of the central questions a woman starts to ask as soon as she's no longer a child.

The issue of vaccines is less one of public coercion, a preponderance of compliance should be enough without it, than of bad science, which frightens the unsophisticated into non-compliance. This is especially problematic when the hold-outs suppose themselves more knowledgeable than they are. This is a media issue, not one of personal choice. Public persuasion is effective if the media is not shill to private interest with no respect for facts or even decency. I would just hope there is no place for bad science in these discussions.
标题中的图片很麻烦。但它们强调了一系列入侵的结果，这些入侵并非来自政府的高压手段本身，而是由于安全部门倾向于发展出一种过度膨胀的自我重要性，以至于隐私问题对它们几乎没有影响。他们所做的很多事情都是秘密的，以至于他们很难避免屈服于掩盖其错误的诱惑，从而形成了一种凌驾于法律之上、甚至凌驾于公众利益之上、当然也凌驾于公众监督之上的文化。20年前，丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)在他的《保密》(Secrecy)一书中对此提出了警告。

I've been away for awhile--since insulting TC with my last comment on this regulating bodies topic. Happy to see some new ideas from some new contributors! I'll try not to be too insulting here, but, no---I do not see this question as at all vexatious. Why? Because, contrary to one comment, not all infectious diseases are gone. The growing measles outbreak seems to aptly illustrate that reality. We ought (seems to me) to be more responsible towards civilization. Immunization programs have, over the long view, proven safe and effective. Recent concerns about the autism connection have not been substantiated, to the best of my current knowledge. It is certainly laudable to respect people who wish to make their own choices about things. But for every choice we make, there is either a benefit to be gained or a price to be paid---or both. And it is another matter altogether when others are compelled to pay the price for choices THEY did not make. On a related note, there is an increasing epidemic of personal irresponsibility infecting our world. But, that is another issue that has been vexatious for perhaps a dozen years. Go your own ways, friends---by all means, make your own choices. But, remember also that those choices can affect innocent people in adverse ways. I really must read what Laura's post has to say about anarchy. I think it may connect with the I epidemic mentioned above. Warmly, Neuman.

在不质疑你文章的主旨的情况下，有几件事是可以澄清的。当一种传染病的所有新病例都来自外部时，就可以说从人群中根除了这种传染病，例如米老鼠麻疹。我想可能有人会忽略这个细微差别。对于目前的问题，我一般不会对人们太苛刻。真正的罪魁祸首是一个对科学如此无知的媒体，以至于它能有任何意义都是一个奇迹。我们很容易就能发现一堆异常现象，这些异常现象可能会让不成熟的人相信，某些超出既定原则的东西在起作用。有一项研究要求两组人进行一系列的抛硬币。一组人投掷硬币，而另一组人想象他们的硬币。测试的操作者能够分辨出哪一组是哪一组，因为假想的硬币产生的结果太接近理论分布了。很难让未经训练的人相信，在太小的样本中，“集群”在统计上并不显著。 Hence Oprah has convinced armies of soccer moms to keep their children unvaccinated. It's her, and not the mothers, who should be disciplined somehow. The issue is vexed because our bodies are regulated in ways that government is needed to prevent, insofar as this is possible. Aside from the manhandling we get from security forces, and the us vs. them mentality that creeps into law-enforcement, especially where white cops police black neighborhoods, government doesn't do nearly as much regulating our bodies as merchants do. That is, the issue is vexed because it doesn't address the most pertinent scale of intrusion, employers, the grocer, the bank, the insurance companies, fast food, etc. Political power is not proprietary, and tyranny is nothing more than the, perceived, prerogative of the strong. The role of government is not to own power, but to keep proprietary claims from being made upon it.

Do you feel a child should be able to bring a Wrongful Life suit against their parents when it is clear the parents knew there would be a 50% chance of passing on a defective dominant gene that would seriously limit the quality of life of the child?

就像我认为一个孩子一生都不应该对被带到这个世界上的“礼物”感到有义务一样。“无”不是“有”的对立面，而是“无”的对立面。送秋波是错误的。

如果经验是一种幻觉呢?如果我们人类只是幻觉呢?如果我们的身体和心理过程都是幻觉呢?那么，关于人体所有权和/或对人体所有权的监管的问题是否仍然重要?肯定或认为，我拥有我的身体-它?我有权利吗?或者我可以对我的身体做我想做的事?在这种情况下完全采取另一个维度的确定，也许是精神维度?如果是这样的话，在精神层面上，所有权(个人或国家层面)的意义是什么?在我看来，人类对所有权的幻觉是人类对人性的一种矫情的、误导的、甚至是错误的理解的结果。我们一无所有，更不用说我们的物理包装了。 One day I have all my body parts (regulated or not by the system), the next day I am not even here! So how could I, or any system created by humans, all of us merely illusions, possibly have any rights over this ethereal illusionary human substance?

Can an illusion make a difference in you ability to apprehend your own words? Or to appreciate their meaning? The seeming hermetic seal between minds is not a simple matter. There is something secreted there (the refusal to appreciate my response) and yet there is also something there every bit as unhidden as it is unknown to me (your being influenced to do so). The former discerns you as a thing apart, but renders you anonymous to yourself. The latter frees me of your prejudices and so offers me the meaning of the name as that unhidden though yet unknown person. The flaw in the logic of it is its refusal to recognize the unfinished isolation in the qualifier. "Is not" is not the contradictory to "is", it is the contrary. And so the logical inference that divides the universe into distinct units and entities bleeds meaning as it goes. What extends is not more perfect isolation but less. We distinguish each other by offering the means to each other to be free of such secreted unresponsiveness and are introduced to each other as much unhidden as we are yet unknown. Our name is the initiation of that difference. This is why a name is a special linguistic event that logic cannot defeat.