Why should we accept consent as a first principle of morality?
Consent
Posts
Total:
113
-->
@Sum1hugme
Morality, as a social construct, requires at least two people to have its effect. A single person's actions, wholly separate from another and having no effect on another may have some consequences to that single person, but certainly to no other. And, generally speaking, whether it is moral, or not, that a single person act without consequence to anyone else, has society really suffered due to those actions? If not, then morality is mute. The only code that acting, singular person has broken is that of his own well being. That, lone, ma have some effect on another, but it has not a moral effect on anyone else. A sense of loss of some degree, but not a sense of loss of morality.
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
-->
@Sum1hugme
It depends on which theory of ethics your' talking about - the closest thing to mine would probably be humanism, but its probably more descriptive as "sentience-ism" or essentially two axioms. that anything with sentience has moral value - and - that we ought maximize moral value/good/etc, and reduce bad/things that would detract from moral value.
From that framework, each thing with moral value has a plethora of rights that would defend against another creature trying to violate that value - we ought not kill x because x is morally valuable. Along those rights are ones to not having their minds or bodies exploited (only separated for pragmatics), hurting them, psychologically or physiologically, would detract from that moral good, that pleasure, etc.
Consent is a key component in performing acts that psychologically and physiologically change people.
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, if we can accept that there are implicit contracts, like the social contract, then that defeats the idea that consent is a first principle of morality. Also, I consider lying to be immoral, not because it affects another moral actor, but because it can't be in line with a first principle of morality.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sentiocentrism?
-->
@Sum1hugme
I 'suppose? I'm not familiar with the term - I've outlined my moral theory a lot here.
-->
@Theweakeredge
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lying is an act that almost always injures the liar, first. Besides, your subject is consent, in the which lying is not a factor. A secondary person is not obliged to con sent to the lie.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yeah that would be it
-->
@Sum1hugme
-->
@fauxlaw
Well in the case of lying, if we accept consent as the metaphysic of morality, then the act is immoral because the person being lied to did not consent to being mis/disinformed, or to the consequences of actions they will perform on the basis of that lie.
But that doesn't explain why consent should be the first principle of morality.
-->
@Theweakeredge
How do you define sentience?
-->
@Lemming
Lol, well that's not much of a justification. Self interest appeals to the egoists.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Mostly synonymous with consciousness - boiled down to an ability to feel on pain, and aware of themself.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you agree with the statement:"Pain and Pleasure are our sovereign masters."?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Um... first of all "sovereign masters" is extremely redundant and second of all - no. I think that they are incredibly important, but they neither have any will to impose over any other individual nor do they both have an axiomatic place in moral ethics. They have an important role yes, but I think that sentience is much more important, as well as a general idea of well-being.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Why should we accept consent as a first principle of morality?
Trying to wrap my head around the intent of this forum, are you asking if consent is the first principle of morality or are you telling?
-->
@Tarik
I'm asking why we should accept it as a first principle of morality
-->
@Sum1hugme
But what if it isn’t?
-->
@Sum1hugme
"Once it's proved to you that, essentially speaking, one little drop of your own fat should be dearer to you than a hundred thousand of your fellow men, and that in this result all so-called virtues and obligations and other ravings and prejudices will finally be resolved, go ahead and accept it, there's nothing to be done, because two times two is-mathematics. Try objecting to that."
- Notes from Underground
- Novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky
It doesn't really matter 'what moral/ethic system one uses, I'm thinking, identifying myself as a nihilist, as I do.
Don't really matter if one chooses altruism or egoism,
I can be pleased by happening to treat other's decently, and pursue such by that pleasant feeling, a selfish reason.
I can think I know better for others lives, than they know themselves, force methods that seem wrong to them, out of my desire to 'help them.
Ethics, morality, drive me a bit to madness should I think about them too much.
Easier to just exercise a 'bit, of reasoning, easier still to accept habits 'without reasoning.
Reasoning though, if you want some, though they seem arbitrary to me.
'
We humans often possess empathy,
Seeing other's as people, ourselves in them,
Feel their pain, see from their eyes,
A sense of justice, instinctually we attribute,
They deserving.
Could go with game theory,
People less likely to violate you,
If you don't violate others.
And I return to habit,
Our aesthetics, our preferences,
Imprinted by our past actions,
Forced to play nice as children,
Becomes a preference as adult.
But that doesn't explain why consent should be the first principle of morality.
Consent is a first principle strictly because the lied-to person likely gave no consent to be told a lie, so the ultimate consequences, as I said, belong to the liar. The liar violated consent by not allowing nor accepting consent from the person lied to.
-->
@Tarik
That's the point
-->
@fauxlaw
But that doesn't explain why violation of consent is immoral. You're just accepting consent as the first principle, and reasoning from there.
-->
@Sum1hugme
That's the point
...The point is consent isn’t the first principle of morality? Then why ask?
-->
@Tarik
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.
-->
@Sum1hugme
But that doesn't explain why violation of consent is immoral.I repeat my #2:
I repeat from my #2
In all other circumstance, when one person's actions do affect another, then consent must be present and expressed by that other person before the first may act on their own thinking to affect the other person[s]. To do so, otherwise, i.e., without their consent, the first person has violated the inherent rights of the other person, whether the action is considered by society as moral, or not.
-->
@fauxlaw
You're just assuming consent is a right, and asserting that a violation of that consent is a violation of their rights. But you aren't justifying why 1) consent is a right, or 2) why consent is a moral principle.
You're just assuming consent is a right,
No, consent is not a right, or it would be available to all. The law, with some credence allowed to medical/psychological expertise, determines that consent is an age-related matter, and that below a considered age, consent is not to be assumed as having been given due to immaturity, even if that immature person says they consent. Consent, therefore, is a privilege for a person to declare, and a hard barrier to any other. The barrier exists unless consent is lawfully offered, making consent a moral factor.
The apparent opposition to the idea of consent being a principle of morality, notwithstanding, being a stick in the mud where there is no mud is just a stick. As in, being stuck by one's own stubbornness.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Consent being a right is fairly easy to justify, I would define a right as an automatic quality or protection granted to an individual to protect them from pain, "badness" - so from that framework, consent is quite obviously a right - fundamentally consent is a gate, whenever something occurs or is proposed that the individual does like that gate is closed, when something occurs or is proposed that the individual does, the gate is opened.
Where this becomes important is matters of moral ambiguity, for example, sadistic sex. Typically humans recognize pain as something to be avoided; however, certain people derive pleasure from the practice of being in pain physically, if one were to assume that sadism is bad in all instances then you would be denying people pleasure unnecessarily - therefore "consent", generally, is to provide nuance and account for individuality.
Consent is a moral principle in the same way cost-benefit analysis are.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I disagree that cost-benefit analysis has anything to with morality. That's the utilitarian standpoint, but I disagree with Utilitarianism almost completely. The only thing I accept, is that people seek pleasure and seek to avoid pain, however, I disagree with the idea that pain and pleasure are our sovereign masters.
Your definition of a right would seemingly apply to civil rights, but not natural rights, since civil rights are granted, and natural rights are inherent. Do you believe that consent is a natural right or a civil right? Do you believe that natural rights exist? And finally, do you believe that there are implicit contracts like the social contract?