Consent

Author: Sum1hugme

Posts

Total: 113
Topic's author
#31
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
An appeal to legality is an appeal to authority. Suppose the legal definition of consent allowed for children to consent to adult things. You wouldn't say that because children consented to sexual acts with Michael Jackson, that that isn't morally abhorrent. We can't use the law as a standard of morality, because law is nothing more than the dictations of whoever is in power at the time. 

  Do you believe that there are implicit contracts, like the social contract?
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Natural rights don't exist, nothing in morality naturally exists, its a human construct - however as humans you do implicitly accept said construct, so pragmatically they are natural, just not in the sense that most would consider. It goes like this:

P1: You desire to not have value taken from your well-being
P2: Other's desire to not have value taken from their well-being
CON: Humans desire to not have value taken from their well-being

P1: Human well-being has value
P2: Harm detracts value from human well-being
P3: We ought not detract value from human well-being
CON: Therefore you ought not harm human well-being

P1: IF you accept that a human's well being has value, THEN you ought not to harm humans
P2: All humans accept human's well being has value
CON: Therefore you ought not to harm humans

Primary axioms you accept:
Human well-being has value
You don't want to detract from that value
Harming human well-being detracts from that value
#33
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Quite a granted definition of "right". Consent masks from badness according to you but your framework doesn't define badness itself. Who decides a specific form of badness? How do you guarantee that the consent in place will not lead you to achieving that pint of badness?
#34
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
Badness, in general, is just harm that is not balanced by good - for example - working out creates physical stress on your body, but the results that are more beneficial than the harm done, therefore that thing is "good". I thought that was pretty clear. 

How do you know that any moral rule will lead you to "good"? In this case evidence, we know that rape will harm an individual more than it will help a person, we know that in general, doing something harmful to someone against their consent is "bad", because the instances where it is not against their consent, its typically because of an exception - for example - sadist sex. 

Who defines what's bad? What harms people the most... so evidence, typically empirical. 
#35
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
That still doesn't justify consent to be an inherent right whatsoever. So, a child consenting to a pedophile for an experimental session of intercourse out of curiosity would make it moral for you? Or then you would define consent to be an age-based quality. How could that be an inherent right then? It's just a practice to prevent the badness that is so evidential to define.
Topic's author
#36
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why should we accept well-being as a first principle of morality? Suppose your well-being came into conflict with another's? Or a group of people? How could the calculus lead one to morality?
#37
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Which ever leads to the greatest good - and well-being literally has to be the principle, you accept that human well-being matters, I know that for a fact. All humans do. 
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
First of all - children can't give informed consent, don't give me that shit bud - its an inherent quality that grows as the individual experiences such and such - furthermore, sadism is something where someone develops pleasure from pain, for every drop of pain there is pleasure - pedophilia does not relate there bud - pedophilia mentally and physically harms individuals regardless of experience, the same is not true of every principle bud. 
Topic's author
#39
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
So the greatest good=the greatest well being? Then suppose I'm a doctor with five patients who need different organ transplants. I notice that there is a healthy guy sleeping in the next room, from whom I could harvest the necessary organs, and then maximize the well being of the five over the one. Am I:

A) morally obligated to harvest the man's organs
B) morally allowed, but not obligated to harvest the man's organs
C) morally prohibited from harvesting the man's organs

...?

#40
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Fortunately, we live in a society that is legislated by more than one or a few people. We are legislated, federally, by 535 representatives, a majority of whom must agree to pass legislation of any kind, and they are, on average, in Congress for 10+ years, each [what does that say for imposed term limits?], so the whims of social change are slow to be altered by legislation. Further, we have the ability to remove any who, by our collective reasoning, just at state level, or district level, are bad actors. So, your suppositions, while possible, are improbable. As a result, the law often leans on morality as guide, hence, age of consent, for example. And, do not forget that generally, at a local level, the judicial system works fairly consistently in the favor of our moral ground. Yes, there are exceptions. However, we have cone to believe, for example, that the Supreme Court is stacked to either the left, or the right. However, over the long haul since it was established in 1791 [230 years, and counting] the Supreme Court's most frequent decision result, by count, agree or oppose, is unanimous, by 59% of all decisions. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/supremes.htm

That says the stacked theory is just that, and not one that is very supportable by the numbers. Were you aware, by the way, that one of the most controversial decisions, at least in modern time, Roe v. Wade [1973], was decided 7-2, in the affirmative, and that of the 7, 4 Justices, including the Chief Judge, were appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for politics on the Court. It is generally a myth.
Topic's author
#41
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
That doesn't address the fact that you are appealing to legality as a moral standard, which is an appeal to authority. Just because a consensus of legislators agree this or that thing should be illegal or is immoral, doesn't make them right.
#42
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
C - you're assuming a lot bud - 1 - that there are no other people with organs , 2 - that the organs in the sleepen' dude are actually matching with the people (given that there are 5 it's practically impossible for all 5 of them to match), etc, etc - you be assuming lots with this question.
#43
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's not exactly a right then. It's just a mental development of understanding as you age. An understanding that can be utilized in your ethical framework in both ways- good or bad. What's good or bad is always pre-existing and therefore consent should neither be called a right or a first principal of morality. It's a medium to experience and decide that good-bad spectrum.

All according to you.
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Oh, ye of little faith. In this instance, they are right. Why doubt? Appreciate that they are right. Appreciate that morality and legality can intersect for our good. If they don't wee have the means to stand and oppose. Individuals start revolutions when necessary, and, yes, that can go both ways.
#45
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
Um.. yes it is -  its simply a right you get when you turn the age of majority... ya know, like the right to vote? That's when society's deemed you experienced enough to make those kinds of decisions regarding things that aren't always harmful - though I think morally that age should be 21. 
#46
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, the state doesn't allow me to vote until I'm 21. What if I'm 20 years and 11 months in? How could age- a mere number be included in a protocol of exercising my right? Morally, that doesn't even make sense. The case of consent is just about the same. In France, the minimum age of consensual sex is set to 16. Whatabout someone of 15 or just above 15 or just below 16? How can consent- an "abstract principal of morality", an "inherent right" be so constricted by age limit while being so predominant in my ethical understanding of an act?
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
The state says 18 - I say 21`- because the brain is mostly developed and won't be permanently harmed by a lot of stuff. 
#48
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
You're not understanding. I notice that many people say that this or that is immoral or not because this person did or did not consent. I'm simply asking why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality.
No you’re not understanding, just because consent is important in regards to situations where it’s applicable doesn’t mean it’s the first principle of morality, the two premises don’t logically follow.
Topic's author
#49
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
C - you're assuming a lot bud - 1 - that there are no other people with organs , 2 - that the organs in the sleepen' dude are actually matching with the people (given that there are 5 it's practically impossible for all 5 of them to match), etc, etc - you be assuming lots with this question.
  For the sake of the example, we are assuming I know for certain that the organs are all matches and that there isn't enough time to get any other organs. Otherwise, you're missing the philosophical point. If your answer is C, then you have defeated your own premise that the greatest well being is the greatest moral good.
#50
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
No - because you're also assuming these people die - but your also assuming that 5 people suffering is as bad as one person dying and his sovereignty being abused - you are still assuming quite a few things. 
Topic's author
#51
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Stop attacking a position I don't hold. Im not claiming that consent is a metaphysic of morality. I'm questioning that claim's validity. 
Topic's author
#52
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
For the sake of the example, the consequences are 5 sick people dying, or one healthy person dying to save the five sick, albeit against his consent. 

I am not however assuming the following:
 that 5 people suffering is as bad as one person dying and his sovereignty being abused
  If your answer is C, that it is morally prohibited to take the organs of an unconsenting individual to save five sick people, then you have contradicted your own claim that the greatest well being is the greatest moral good. 
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm questioning that claim's validity.
Why? Who's claiming that? Lastly do you think it's moral to keep consent in mind when making decisions affiliated with it?
#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
No - no it isn't - you are still assuming that 1 person is worth ess than 5 people, and I never claimed that. Not once. I said that you ought to do the greatest moral good, I also said that it of the greatest benefit to well-being. That still doesn't necessarily mean that 1 person dying is less harm than 5 people. You just assumed that to be the case - but have you ever though of the amount of pain one goes through? or the level of suffering inflicted? Or the difference of letting suffering and causing suffering? This question is nonsensical, and in order for it to be construed the way you like, you need to assume so many things, its an absurd and extremely unlikely hypothetical with no basis in actual moral reasoning. 
Topic's author
#55
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
"This question is nonsensical..."
This is where i got it from:
Another problem for utilitarianism is that it seems to overlook justice and rights. One common illustration is called Transplant. Imagine that each of five patients in a hospital will die without an organ transplant. The patient in Room 1 needs a heart, the patient in Room 2 needs a liver, the patient in Room 3 needs a kidney, and so on. The person in Room 6 is in the hospital for routine tests. Luckily (for them, not for him!), his tissue is compatible with the other five patients, and a specialist is available to transplant his organs into the other five. This operation would save all five of their lives, while killing the “donor”. There is no other way to save any of the other five patients (Foot 1966, Thomson 1976; compare related cases in Carritt 1947 and McCloskey 1965).
We need to add that the organ recipients will emerge healthy, the source of the organs will remain secret, the doctor won’t be caught or punished for cutting up the “donor”, and the doctor knows all of this to a high degree of probability (despite the fact that many others will help in the operation). Still, with the right details filled in (no matter how unrealistic), it looks as if cutting up the “donor” will maximize utility, since five lives have more utility than one life (assuming that the five lives do not contribute too much to overpopulation). If so, then classical utilitarianism implies that it would not be morally wrong for the doctor to perform the transplant and even that it would be morally wrong for the doctor not to perform the transplant. Most people find this result abominable. They take this example to show how bad it can be when utilitarians overlook individual rights, such as the unwilling donor’s right to life.
_____
  I'm trying to figure out:
1) Is it morally obligatory to generate the most well-being for the most number of sentient (in this case, self-aware) beings in your model?
2) What is your definition of moral good?
Topic's author
#56
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh, ye of little faith. In this instance, they are right. Why doubt? Appreciate that they are right. Appreciate that morality and legality can intersect for our good. If they don't wee have the means to stand and oppose. Individuals start revolutions when necessary, and, yes, that can go both ways.
  I agree that morality and politics intersect often, I don't agree that "legality=morality"

  Legislation can be evil, look at the Nazi's and Stalin. The russians under Lenin, and Stalin, did not successfully depose the despots. The Bolsheviks won the civil war to boot.
#57
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yes, and you can be hit by lightning, bitten by a shark, crushed by a meteor, and eaten by flies. If you spend wasted time thinking about all the bad things that can happen, it will surely affect your well-being. SSSSSSSTOPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!

It fails to even be a reasonable argument after a while.  It's called pessimism. Change the 'e', and you have about all that is worth.
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
One ought to consider how the Egyptians felt after all the plagues when Moses wanted to take all their slaves out of Egypt because the Pharaoh was such a stubborn man, he could not see past the potential economic ruin of his civilization without slavery. Some folks in the US South had the same stubbornness, and caused the misery of so many of their own, and otherwise, for much the same reason, that continues to plague us today. Pessimism. 

The Egyptians have been wondered about ever since, but few stop to realize that, to date, we've found little evidence that they worried enough to even write about the experience. Their civilization endured another 1200 years or so, flourishing until they, too, like every empire, again worried about the will to sustain it.  We're there now, in the U.S. Why? Pissimism. 
Topic's author
#59
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm not following you anymore. I'm just trying to point out that your logic is a fallacy. An appeal to legality is an appeal to authority because legality is not automatically moral by virtue of being law, even if that law is agreed upon by the majority because that would be an ad populum. 
#60
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
The most amount of well being, that's been fairly obvious, its simply not the case that humans are so simple that you can easily say: "yup that person is more or less important than another morally" it also has to do with how much a person suffers, how much a person benefits - it is incredibly nuanced - if you can't understand that then I get why you like Kant so much.

The answer isn't black and white dude.