Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What is "consent"

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 9:29:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

I suppose consent is only consent when the person sufficiently understands the situation or is not deliberately deceived.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

No, consent cannot be given after the action is done, especially because that may constitute "excuses" for doing something because X thinks Y will like it after the action is done. In order for true consent to actually exist, Y must be rational, posses understanding of the action, and make the decision without coercion by outside means.

For example, if man X takes a gun and points it at man Y and says "I will shoot you in the head if you don't give me your sandwich" and man Y agrees and gives man X his sandwich, then man Y did not actually "consent" because he was coerced into the action.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:09:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

Consent cannot be given after the fact. However, the transgression can, in theory, be forgiven, if the person who was transgressed against so chooses.

If I don't get my wife to consent to spending our money, well, I better hope she really likes whatever I bought. But that doesn't mean she consented to buying it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For those that say that consent cannot be given after the fact, does this mean that such a case would constitute a violation of rights? One common understanding in rights theory is that the violation of one's rights is a logical forfeiture to the claim of your own rights (not sure if Rags still goes with this, but he use to).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:12:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:08:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
For those that say that consent cannot be given after the fact, does this mean that such a case would constitute a violation of rights? One common understanding in rights theory is that the violation of one's rights is a logical forfeiture to the claim of your own rights (not sure if Rags still goes with this, but he use to).

I would think that the after-the-fact appreciation would ameliorate that. I'm not sure of the full argument...but, to bring things back to a more personal nature, if I buy something without my wife's consent (that I really truly think she'll like), I can't fault her for doing the same. I do, however, have to cut her more slack if I just got "luckier", in the sense that if she likes what I bought more than I like what she did.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:15:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

I view consent in very much a tensed way, so retrospective consent makes no sense unless you make a new word for it. If you do X and some random guy likes it after it has happened, he hasn't given you consent, he simply enjoyed X and has changed his view such that he would give consent next time X is proposed. If you could know for absolute certainty however that this is the view he would take after X is executed, then we have the moral problem of certainty and determinism. Let's just say that you have consent before hand if you are absolutely certain that you will have it later. It's just that this situation is indeed very, (as you put it) hypothetical, if not completely impossible under uncertainty principles of philosophy.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:44:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lets modify this a bit. It is my fault for putting "consent" in quotations. But should the law care?

For example, if someone robs your house, and they are later caught and you decide to forgive them (take pity or whatever), should they not be charged with theft? They clearly did not consent or permission to do what they did. And while not calling it "consent" after the fact, should the change of opinion change how the law looks at it too? Or should the law view it as still a crime?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 2:42:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:44:38 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lets modify this a bit. It is my fault for putting "consent" in quotations. But should the law care?

For example, if someone robs your house, and they are later caught and you decide to forgive them (take pity or whatever), should they not be charged with theft? They clearly did not consent or permission to do what they did. And while not calling it "consent" after the fact, should the change of opinion change how the law looks at it too? Or should the law view it as still a crime?

Depends on the crime. There's crimes where the individual has to press charges--and there's crimes where they don't.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:08:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

I don't know if the opposite has to be true. Why do you believe it would logically "have to be" so?

It's a very difficult topic so I'll just post what's going through my mind (not that I agree with it).

-- Non-consent >>> consent after the fact - I thought you were doing something bad for me, but now I've forgiven you and/or believe it was actually the right thing for me. (like how many people might feel about education)

The degree of possible distress of the non-consent is a huge factor, probably the main one. In some cases it may be acceptable, in others it doesn't seem acceptable. This is also open to real-world practicalities like coercion of the victim after the act. The "victim's" mind may also be trying to shield itself from trauma. Is this act viewed as malicious from the outside?

-- Consent >>> non-consent after the fact - I thought you were doing something good for me, but now I'm not happy with it, most likely believe that it was the wrong thing for me.

A major factor here is whether the "victim" was deceived into consent. If they were then this is definitely acceptable. Also, is the act viewed as malicious from the outside? Does the "victim" have the ability to truly consent.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:21:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

Whether some one enjoyed something after the fact doesn't change the fact they did not consent in the first place.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 6:28:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This reminds of the Quote "I know pornography when I see it" but directed to those who can't see it when it is plastered all over the side of a barn.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

To me this sounds a lot like asking whether gambling is a good thing if you happen to win. There's no way to know ahead of time whether this will happen, but if you do win then you will be happy and there are no real negative consequences for you. If you lose, however, then suddenly gambling might seem like a very bad thing. The biggest difference is that winning or losing doesn't require choice - the choice is made the moment you decide to gamble. But does winning make it right and losing make it wrong?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:56:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:21:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/16/2014 9:10:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The dictionary defines consent as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something." This is commonly used in reference to law and rights (or violation of rights).

But let's propose a hypothetical situation. Someone does not want to do X, and they make it clear to you that they do not want X. If you force X upon them, it is clear that they did not consent to it and a violation of rights (and possibly the law has occurred). However, if after the fact, they say "wow, I really enjoyed X and am so thankful that you made me do it."

Can consent be given after the fact? Does that count? If so, would the opposite not logically have to be true (that consent can be removed after the fact?). I understand the horrible implications on real world living that allowing consent to be removed afterwards would cause (though this already happens a lot with high school and college "rape" where people change their minds and say "no, I never consented"). But from a theoretical logical point of view.

Whether some one enjoyed something after the fact doesn't change the fact they did not consent in the first place.

Hmmm...

How does this apply to discipline? When you scold a child, does the child consent to the scolding? If the child does not (we've all seen sulking children I'm sure), how does this violation of a child's consent play out? Isn't the child incapable of consent in the first place (i.e. draw a parallel to statutory rape)? If not, wouldn't any form of discipline of a child be immoral?

LOL, this gets a bit convoluted after a bit. What's the difference between scolding a child and having sex with one, if in both cases the child's ability to consent is non-existent?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:57:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
LOL, homework is "nonconsensual". LOL, so homework is immoral...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 1:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 1:57:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
LOL, homework is "nonconsensual". LOL, so homework is immoral...

Dear lord, so homework is a form of rape. Where does this stop??
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?