Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-457wm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T13:18:07.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolutionary psychology of ownership is rooted in the Lockean liberal principle of self-ownership

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2023

Larry Arnhart Open the ORCID record for Larry Arnhart [Opens in a new window]
Larry Arnhart*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA larnhart1@niu.edu; Darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The psychology of ownership is rooted in self-ownership. The human brain has an evolved interoceptive sense of owning the body that supports self-ownership and the ownership of external things as extensions of the self-owning self. In this way, evolutionary neuroscience supports a Lockean liberal conception of equal natural rights rooted in natural self-ownership.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e325
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Antoniello, D., & Gottesman, R. (2017). Limb misidentification: A clinical-anatomical prospective study. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 29, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnhart, L. (1995). The new Darwinian naturalism in political theory. American Political Science Review, 89, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnhart, L. (1998). Darwinian natural right: The biological ethics of human nature. The State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Arnhart, L. (2016). Political questions: Political philosophy from Plato to Pinker. Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Buccola, N. (2012). The political thought of Frederick Douglass. New York University Press.Google Scholar
Ceunen, E., Vlaeyen, J., & Van Diest, I. (2016). On the origin of interoception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, A. D. (2015). How do you feel? An interoceptive moment with your neurobiological self. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F. (2020). Mind the body: An exploration of bodily self-awareness. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglass, F. (1991). The Frederick Douglass papers: Volume 4, ed. Blassingame, J. W. & McKivigan, J. R.. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, T., Venneri, A., Simone, A. M., Fan, Y., & Northoff, G. (2010) The neuroanatomy of asomatognosia and somatoparaphrenia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 81, 276–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gandola, M., Invernizzi, P., Sedda, A., Ferre, E. R., Sterzi, R., Sherna, M., … Bottini, G. (2012) An anatomical account of somatoparaphrenia. Cortex, 48, 1165–1178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallar, G., & Ronchi, R. (2009) Somatoparaphrenia: A body delusion. A review of the neuropsychological literature. Experimental Brain Research, 192, 533–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed