Originally posted by bbarr
What is the "Consenting Adults Theory"? Is it just the claim for any act, if all affected parties consent to the act, then the act is morally permissible?
Yes, you could call it the popular liberal status quo vision on morality.
Anything goes as long as people are "consenting adults".
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs it necessary that all parties understand the risks (if any) of the act in question? In other words, is it necessary that all parties be sufficiently informed before they can be said to actually consent to an act? Is it a necessary condition that all parties be rational? Is it a necessary condition that no parties are being deceived or coerced? In short, what are the prerequisites of actual consent, according to this theory?
Yes, you could call it the popular liberal status quo vision on morality.
Anything goes as long as people are "consenting adults".
Originally posted by bbarr
Is it necessary that all parties understand the risks (if any) of the act in question? In other words, is it necessary that all parties be sufficiently informed before they can be said to actually consent to an act? Is it a necessary condition that all parties be rational? Is it a necessary condition that no parties are being deceived or coerced? In short, what are the prerequisites of actual consent, according to this theory?
To answer these questions we should ask those people who practice this theory. Of course this theory isn't a theory in the usual sense of the word. We should investigate the reality of peoples moral convictions in order to find out what exactly this theory entails. What are the moral fundaments of the masses who left Christianity behind and do not accept the corresponding morals anymore that go with it ?
If we look at the ten commandments we can safely state that the only two commandments that are generally accepted as "true" are the following: [15] Thou shalt not steal.
[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
The only two necessary to make the markets of our consumer oriented capitalist society work and keep them from collapsing.
The rest of the Commandments are "fossiles" of medieval thinking. Only "fundamentalists" value the rest of the commandments.
One problem to answering a lot of questions surrounding the theory, were made apparent during the recent court case in Germany.
A man ate another man. They were both consenting. One man is now jailed for manslaughter and the other man...well...he's eaten.
The fore most question is: If you consent to being eaten, are you still rational?
Another thing that pops to mind is that murder is definate. There's no changing half way through, no stopping it once it's started and pretty difficult to find out if someone's rational, after they've become food.
I would, therefore, make a serious distinction between consenting aldults doing anything but murder/man slaughter and consenting adults doing murder/man slaughter.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHmmm. Well, suppose Smith is destitute and needs money for food. Suppose the only way Smith can think of to get some food is to take a loan from Brown. Suppose that Brown is willing to loan Smith some money, as long as Smith agrees to certain conditions written down in a contract. The contract reads as follows:
It's about reality Bbarr. Please don't go away 😉
I, Smith, by taking Brown's money, agree to pay back Brown by noon tomorrow. Further, I agree to voluntarily submit to being physically beaten tomorrow if I fail to pay back Brown. These beatings may be as severe as Brown feels is necessary. Finally, agree that if, after one week, I fail to pay back Brown, then my life if forfeit to Brown.
X _______________
Suppose Smith signs this contract. Suppose that Smith finds himself unable to pay back Brown tomorrow. Does this mean that it is morally permissible for Brown to horse-whip Smith? Suppose Smith finds himself unable to pay back Brown after the week's end. Does this mean that it is morally permissible for Brown to kill Smith? I think the answer to both these questions is "no". Hence, I think that consent isn't always sufficient to make an act morally permissible.
Originally posted by bbarr
Hmmm. Well, suppose Smith is destitute and needs money for food. Suppose the only way Smith can think of to get some food is to take a loan from Brown. Suppose that Brown is willing to loan Smith some money, as long as Smith agrees to certain conditions written down in a contract. The contract reads as follows:
[b]I, Smith, by taking Brown's money, agree to pay back Brown by noon tomorrow. Further, I agree to voluntarily submit to being physically beaten tomorrow if I fail to pay back Brown. These beatings may be as severe as Brown feels is necessary. Finally, agree that if, after one week, I fail to pay back Brown, then my life if forfeit to Brown.
X _______________
Suppose Smith signs this contract. Suppose that Smith finds himself unable to pay back Brown tomorrow. Does this mean that it is morally permissible for Brown to horse-whip Smith? Suppose Smith finds himself unable to pay back Brown after the week's end. Does this mean that it is morally permissible for Brown to kill Smith? I think the answer to both these questions is "no". Hence, I think that consent isn't always sufficient to make an act morally permissible.
[/b]
Hi Bennet. Whilst I am sure we all agree the above example is indeed immoral, could you explain why it would be immoral.
Secondly, if you don't mind touching on it, could you give your views on prostitution (consentual) and pornography (again consentual).
cheers
Ivanhoe, since you disapprove of consenting to be killed, I assume you also disapprove of suicide, and I think that this is out of respect for human life in general--one doesn't own one's life; some other power does. Is this correct?
If this is the case, how do you feel about the moral status of driving cars or smoking?
Originally posted by royalchickenRC,
Ivanhoe, since you disapprove of consenting to be killed, I assume you also disapprove of suicide, and I think that this is out of respect for human life in general--one doesn't own one's life; some other power does. Is this correct ...[text shortened]... how do you feel about the moral status of driving cars or smoking?
Come back and post when your an adult!😉
Originally posted by royalchicken
Ivanhoe, since you disapprove of consenting to be killed, I assume you also disapprove of suicide, and I think that this is out of respect for human life in general--one doesn't own one's life; some other power does. Is this correct?
If this is the case, how do you feel about the moral status of driving cars or smoking?
RC: " I assume you also disapprove of suicide, and I think that this is out of respect for human life in general--one doesn't own one's life; some other power does. Is this correct?"
Yes.
I don't see anything wrong with driving cars. ( I'm so curious with what you will come up with !)
Smoking is damaging to your health. That's why we all should refrain from smoking.
However, taking care of your own health isn't a matter of following some rules. It is more an attitude of restraint and selfcontrol that is important in this respect.
Originally posted by bbarrI don't find that signing this contract is a form of mutual
Hmmm. Well, suppose Smith is destitute and needs money for food. Suppose the only way Smith can think of to get some food is to take a loan from Brown. Suppose that Brown is willing to loan Smith some money, as long as Smith agrees to cert ...[text shortened]... n't always sufficient to make an act morally permissible.
[/b]
consent between the two parties.
One party has nothing to gain. The other has nothing to lose.
In the eyes of any civil court, this contract would be deemed
"unconscionable". The finding would be the same even if
it didn't involve assualt and death. The fact that one party
has nothing to gain, and the other nothing to lose, essentially
means that one was being completely irrational, and the other was
acting involuntarily, which is sufficient to find it unconscionable.
This is the very reason that courts don't recognize unconscionable
"contracts."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/u055.htm
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by ivanhoeEvery act you commit carries with is some probability that it will cause your death. For example, shooting yourself in the head, which you would disapprove of, is very likeyl , but not certain, to kill you. Driving your car is very unlikely to kill you, but the probability is nontrivial. Smoking a cigarette is not likely to kill you at all, but doing it many times is rather likely to kill you. At what probability do you draw the line between an action being suicide and thus morally unacceptable and an action not being suicide? What sorts of actions correspond to this threshold probability?
RC: " I assume you also disapprove of suicide, and I think that this is out of respect for human life in general--one doesn't own one's life; some other power does. Is this correct?"
Yes.
I don't see anything wrong with driv ...[text shortened]... of restraint and selfcontrol that is important in this respect.
I don't see anything morally wrong with driving cars, smoking, or shooting oneself in the head, although my views aren't currently the subject of discussion.