02 Aug 04
Originally posted by pcaspianHi Bennet. Whilst I am sure we all agree the above example is indeed immoral, could you explain why it would be immoral.
First, I think it is immoral for Brown to stipulate the conditions mentioned in the contract. The stipulated conditions are unreasonably harsh, and amount to taking advantage of Smith's destitution. I think that by stipulating these conditions, Brown fails to adequately respect Smith as an end in and of himself. In short, Brown fails to act towards Smith with compassion.
Second, I think it is immoral for Brown to carry out the punishments mentioned in the contract. Just punishments are those the severity of which are commensurate with the crime punished. On this score, neither beating nor killing Smith qualify as just. Obviously, neither beating nor killing Smith would qualify as merciful. By treating Smith neither justly nor mercifully, Brown again fails to respect the personhood of Smith; Brown fails to treat Smith as an end in and of himself.
Secondly, if you don't mind touching on it, could you give your views on prostitution (consentual) and pornography (again consentual).
What are the working definitions of 'prostitution' and 'pornography'?
Suppose Brown tells his girlfriend that he'll take her to dinner and a show, but only if she sleeps with him. If she does sleep with him at the end of the night, is she thereby a prostitute?
Suppose Brown is going off to war, and his girlfriend takes some explicit pictures of herself as a gift to him. Are these pictures pornography if Brown keeps them to himself? Are they pornography if accidentally found by another? Are they pornography if Brown tacks them up on the wall?
02 Aug 04
Originally posted by royalchicken
Every 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 ...[text shortened]... or shooting oneself in the head, although my views aren't currently the subject of discussion.
I draw the line there where a person has the intention of killing himself. If one smokes cigarets with the intention of killing oneself, then I would consider this morally unacceptable.
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by bbarr
What are the working definitions of 'prostitution' and 'pornography'?
1.1Prostitution: "The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. "
1.2 Pornography: "Sexually explicit material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. "
1.2b NOTE * I am not interested in discussing pornographic material for purposes other than financial gain. It is clear to us all that there is no point in debating secular ethics if the woman engages in this act for her own pleasure.
Suppose Brown tells his girlfriend that he'll take her to dinner and a show, but only if she sleeps with him. If she does sleep with him at the end of the night, is she thereby a prostitute?
I believe a female prostitute is a woman that receives financial remuneration for sexual services. Should a woman receive a bad of rice, a dinner, or $ 10 is irrelavent. Lets go with the supplied definition.
Suppose Brown is going off to war, and his girlfriend takes some explicit pictures of herself as a gift to him. Are these pictures pornography if Brown keeps them to himself? Are they pornography if accidentally found by another? Are they pornography if Brown tacks them up on the wall?
Indeed they are pornographic, but I'd like to discuss specifically the case where the woman would receive financial gain from her acts.
Do you have a stance on either of these ?
cheers
03 Aug 04
]just suppose SAYS give me a gold ring with a ceremony and then i will sleep with you. later gets half of everything you own and doesnt have to sleep with you oh sorry that is prostitution by legal means
[b]
Suppose Brown tells his girlfriend that he'll take her to dinner and a show, but only if she sleeps with him. If she does sleep with him at the end of the night, is she thereby a prostitute?
I believe a female prostitute is a woman that receives financial remuneration for sexual services. Should a woman receive a bad of rice, a dinner, or $ 10 is irrelavent. Letsif accidentally found by another? Are they
Do you have a stance on either of these ?
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsI don't find that signing this contract is a form of mutual
consent between the two parties. One party has nothing to gain. The other has nothing to lose.
Season the example to taste. Suppose that Brown specifies that Smith must pay him 10% interest on the loan. Suppose Smith believes he'll be able to pay back the loan. Now, both parties have something to gain by signing the contract: Brown stands to make a modest return on his investment, Smith stands to get funds sufficient for food. Both parties also have something to lose. Brown stands to lose his investment, Smith stands to lose his life.
In the eyes of any civil court, this contract would be deemed
"unconscionable".
Well, the contract is unduly harsh, but this is irrelevant to issue of consent. Smith may be fully aware of how harsh the specified conditions are, but find the risk acceptable. He may find the risk acceptable for two reasons. First, it may be very bad for Smith if he doesn't get Brown's money (e.g., Smith is weak from hunger, in need of immediate medical care, etc.). Second, Smith may be confident that he'll be able to pay Brown back (e.g., Smith has a tip on a horse from a reputable source). Under conditions such as these, it may be fully rational for both Brown and Smith to enter into the contract, and thus the contract would not be unconscionable (in the legal sense you provide). Under these conditions, the conscionable contract would still be immoral (Brown violates a moral obligation by stipulating the conditions), and beating or killing Smith for failing to uphold the contract would also be immoral. Hence, it is still the case the consent isn't sufficient for moral permissibility.
03 Aug 04
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI still hold that Smith has nothing to lose. In the situation you
Both parties also have something to lose. Brown stands to lose his investment, Smith stands to lose his life.
constructed, I take being "destitute and needing money for food"
at face value. I believe you constructed this situation to make Smith
seem ultimatley hopeless; he is going to die if he doesn't get this
money to buy food.
In that spirit, Smith is going to die anyway, so entering into the
agreement would give him nothing further to lose. In this sense,
entering into the contract is involuntary - i.e. he truly has no other
options other than certain death, so as a living person, there was
no alternative. Because the agreement was made involuntarily on
Smith's part, I still maintain that no mutual consent exists here, and
thus this is not a good counterexample to show that consent is
insufficient for morality.
Dr. Cribs
03 Aug 04
Bennet and Joe,
I'm enjoying this immensely.
By the way, Bennet -- I tried to reach Dr. Jack last week. He is tied up. (nice pun) You wouldn't be interested in a quick contract job would you?
I would offer you the same Joe, but I really prefer not to die a very, very slow -- death by quotation and spam. Quick and to the point please.
Mike
03 Aug 04
I still hold that Smith has nothing to lose. In the situation you
constructed, I take being "destitute and needing money for food"
at face value. I belive you constucted this situation to make Smith
seem ultimatley hopeless; he is going to die if he doesn't get this
money to buy food.
Did I claim that Smith would certainly die if he didn't take Brown's money? Suppose Smith thinks there is a 25% chance he'll die if he doesn't take Brown's money (he may find a source of food), and a 5% chance he'll die if he does take Brown's money (he has a good chance of winning at the track). Now, how is his decision to enter into a contract with Brown involuntary? Under these conditions, where Smith thinks there is a better chance of of surviving by taking Brown's money, it is perfectly rational to consent to Brown's stipulated conditions. Under these conditions, both parties have something to gain, both have something to lose, and both are acting rationally. Under these conditions all your criteria for consent are satisfied, and yet Brown's stipulated conditions are still immoral and it is still immoral for Brown to beat or kill Smith if Smith can't pay back Brown.
03 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
Did I claim that Smith would certainly die if he didn't take Brown's money?
No, not explicitly. That was just my interpretation of the spirit of the problem.
Under these conditions, where Smith thinks there is a better chance of of surviving by taking Brown's money, it is perfectly rational to consent to Brown's stipulated conditions. Under these conditions, both parties have something to gain, both have something to lose, and both are acting rationally. Under these conditions all your criteria for consent are satisfied, and yet Brown's stipulated conditions are still immoral and it is still immoral for Brown to beat or kill Smith if Smith can't pay back Brown.
Explain to me then how it is moral for a smoker and a cigarette
retailer/manufacturer to have a moral transaction. Both parties
acknowledge that the transaction has a reasonable chance of leading
to the smoker's death, just as your contract carries with it the same
possibility.
Could you highlight the details of how these two analogies differ? Or
do you hold that selling cigarettes is also immoral?
Note that here I am talking about the transaction being immoral, as
you cited the above contract being immoral, and not the voluntary
carrying out of the negative consequence, which this smoking analogy
does not address.
Dr. Cribs
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsMore to the point, explain the contract between a man and a woman who agree to have a child knowing that the child will die?
[b]
Did I claim that Smith would certainly die if he didn't take Brown's money?
No, not explicitly. That was just my interpretation of the spirit of the problem.
Under these conditions, where Smith thinks there is a better chance of of surviving by taking Brown's money, it is perfectly rational to consent to Brown's stipulated condi ...[text shortened]... ying out of the negative consequence, which this smoking analogy
does not address.
Dr. Cribs
And explain the cruelty that they can go ahead anyway, knowing that some poor souls are tortured for a hundred years with the sure knowledge of their impending doom.
03 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyExcellent point! Is all human reproduction immoral because
More to the point, explain the contract between a man and a woman who agree to have a child knowing that the child will die?
it entails the death of the new person? And that new person
wasn't even involved in the mutual consent!
I think that this example shows that voluntary loss of life
does not imply immorality.
Dr. Cribs
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsCareful Dr. Cribs.
Excellent point! Is all human reproduction immoral because
it entails the death of the new person? And that new person
wasn't even involved in the mutual consent!
I think that this example shows that voluntary loss of life
does not imply immorality.
Dr. Cribs
You are the first person in two months to issue a compliment. They are watching... be careful!
<snark>
03 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsSuppose I only smoke once in a rare while. My buying and smoking a pack of cigarettes wouldn't constitute a significant threat to my health. Under these conditions, it perfectly plausible that the transaction between myself and a cigarette manufacturer/retailer could be permissible. Even with repeated transactions between a cigarette manufacturer/retailer and a heavy smoker, it may not be plausible to hold the retailer morally responsible for the heavy smoker's eventual death. The manufacturer may be partially responsible for the heavy smoker's death, given the addictive nature of the product. Given the addictive nature of the product, it may not even be plausible to construe the transaction as an instance of consent, because the heavy smoker may not be acting voluntarily when purchasing cigarettes (he may be acting akratically). I think much of the analysis here will depend on how we construe addiction and its effects on autonomy.
Did I claim that Smith would certainly die if he didn't take Brown's money?
No, not explicitly. That was just my interpretation of the spirit of the problem.
Under these conditions, where Smith thinks there is a bet ...[text shortened]... quence, which this smoking analogy
does not address.
Dr. Cribs
03 Aug 04
Originally posted by pcaspianI don't think either prostitution or pornography are intrinsically wrong. I can conceive of situations within which either would be morally permissible. Can't you?
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]
What are the working definitions of 'prostitution' and 'pornography'?
1.1Prostitution: "The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. "
1.2 Pornography: "Sexually explicit material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. "
1.2b NOTE * I am not interested in discussing porno ...[text shortened]... uld receive financial gain from her acts.
Do you have a stance on either of these ?
cheers[/b]
03 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not particularly interested in exploring consent and morality
Suppose I only smoke once in a rare while. My buying and smoking a pack of cigarettes wouldn't constitute a significant threat to my health. Under these conditions, it perfectly plausible that the transaction between myself and a cigarette ...[text shortened]... l depend on how we construe addiction and its effects on autonomy.
under addiction. That was an unintentional and careless aspect
of my choice of analogy.
But to summarize your answer, the essential differences between
the two situations are:
1. The degree of risk for loss of life (25% versus something just over 0% )
2. The possibility of addiction affecting one's consent.
If you'll allow me to place this situation in a different universe in
which smoking is non-addictive but still potentially risky, the
only difference you then cite is (1), the degree of risk. This is
the essential difference distinguishing the first contract from the
second, with respect to morality, correct?
Dr. Cribs
P.S. I'm not familiar with the term akratic. Could you give
a brief definition and example? I haven't been able to find one.