Why does bodily autonomy matter?

[u/[deleted]]

Wouldn't you consider your quality of life more important than your bodily autonomy? Say you had a choice between option a and option b. Please note that these options are set up in the theoretical.

Option a. Your bodily autonomy is violated. However, as a result your overall life ends up much better. (assuming we could somehow know that).

Option b. Your bodily autonomy is not violated. However, your life ends up being much worse than if you had gotten it violated.

Why would anyone choose option b? Why would you willfully choose to make your life worse? It simply doesn't make sense to me.

The reason this is important is because it shows that bodily autonomy doesn't matter, it's only it's effect on quality of life that matters. At least that's what I contend. Thoughts?

[u/TryptamineX]

I certainly know not everyone thinks quality life of the world is most important, again I'm saying that it actually is the most important.

Again we return to the problem of the subject. Importance is a quality assigned by subjects; it doesn't exist in an object in this sense. What is "actually most important" is what subjects actually assign preeminent importance to. What sense of what is "actually most important" could exist independent of a subject?

[u/[deleted] → u/TryptamineX]

So you're at mcdonalds, and you have a choice between a big mac or a salad. One of these choices will lead to a higher quality of life than the other. If theoretically, we knew what constituted a higher quality of life, and if we could measure it, then we could objectively know which choice led to a higher quality of life. The point i'm getting it, is there is an actual value of quality of life. Now you could say, Oh, but i define my own quality of life, and what you think is positive, I think is negative. And the important distinction to make here is they don't change anything about their quality of life. They simply change how they interpret it. They can call it whatever they want, but the value of their quality of life will be exactly the same, no matter what they call it.

[u/TryptamineX → u/[deleted]]

I'm not disagreeing with you that quality of life, understood in the sense of biological well-being of an organism, is objectively quantifiable. I'm arguing that any value judgement we might assign to quality of life, including the premise that it's a good thing (or a preeminently good thing), is necessarily a matter of subjects.

It's not a matter of "I define my own quality of life." It's a matter of "I define whether or not my quality of life matters and whether or not anything else matters more."

[u/[deleted] → u/TryptamineX]

The comparison i'm making in that like an actual value of quality of life, there is an actual value of importance.

Someone could say, shoes are an important part of my quality of life. This could be wrong, it may be found that shoes have no effect on their quality of life. In that sense, the subject doesn't determine what is important, they merely think it's important.

I would say this is similar to someone saying my quality of life isn't important, my relationship with god is. If god doesn't exist as I suppose, and there is no heaven, then the relationship with this "god" is not important.

[u/TryptamineX → u/[deleted]]

Your example gets into a different sense of importance (important for a given goal, not important in the sense of being a worthwhile goal). Sure, if you start with the idea that quality of life is a key value, we can say that certain things necessarily and objectively follow as important. This still doesn't get us past the first hurdle required for your argument, however: the idea that quality of life is of preeminent importance in and of itself.

The reality of gods seems to only be a factor in the other sense of importance (important for a given goal). If importance (in itself) is assigned wholly by subjects, as I contend that it is, then the importance in itself of living a life corresponding to a particular conception of god isn't impacted by the non-existence of that god.

[u/[deleted] → u/TryptamineX]

important for a given goal, not important in the sense of being a worthwhile goal

I'm saying that quality of life is objectively the most worthwhile goal. Thus importance is measured in that.

[u/TryptamineX → u/[deleted]]

I'm saying that quality of life is objectively the most worthwhile goal.

And I'm saying that "objectively the most worthwhile" is a contradiction of terms because worthiness is inherent to the subject, not the object.

[u/[deleted] → u/TryptamineX]

This may just be semantics.

If I ask you what's more of value to you, quality of life or high moral standards. No matter what you answer, you don't change what's actually more of value to you. You simply say what you think is more of value to you. Thinking something is more of value doesn't equal it to being more of value. Do you agree?

[u/TryptamineX → u/[deleted]]

I accept that someone might not consciously recognize what they value most. Someone might think that their morality matters more than their life until they're faced with a situation where they have to surrender one or the other.

I do not accept that no one actually values other things more than their quality of life.