I'm not sure about this but I have a feeling that, contrary to what the law assumes, many, most, people are incapable of giving their consent and the proof is right under our noses - how many people can think for themselves?, and by that I mean, how many people are rational under the stringent criteria set by philosophers?

Professional fighting occurs in structured and organized environments where both parties engage in fighting under rules and regulations. The intent is not malicious, nor done to a defenseless agent or necessarily to cause harm.

Consent is an irrelevant buzzword here, because a majority of "malicious acts" when done with intent to cause harm are not premeditated nor negotiable. A majority occur under will inference, impulsivity disorders, and are unplanned, with intent of malice - etc. A malicious act is so because the agent is either indifferent to - or - willing disregards the others' lack of desire to be harmed/brutalized i.e., rendering them defenseless, thus 'victimizing' them.

Furthermore, what determines what harms another person is not a matter of consent, agreement or consensus. For example, "consent to be a beaten 3 inches of their life" is completely independent of the fact that these acts can/do cause psychological affects overtime - either (depleting) the quality of the agent and their well-being or increasing it, although the latter is doubtful. Even boxers for instance, have left over remains of demonstrable harm and impact done to their bodies. It is a fact that disregard for their regulations and properly learning to fight will cause some problems in the end.

Whether or not "boxing is wrong to participating in," now that we know this does not apply to the above, because boxing is regulated with intent to minimize as much long-term damage as possible, therefore, can be done ethically. This is not the case for victimization of the defenseless.

A couple thoughts. Perhaps requiring consent would cause more people to think for themselves? If an official came and explained the country/state’s laws and expectations of behavior, that would at least cause everyone to ponder about what they do and don’t agree with. Also, I don’t think stringent philosophical standards are needed for someone to be able to say “I disagree with marijuana being illegal,” or any other issue. Or saying that they disagree with a particular form of punishment, or a particular punishment for a particular crime.

Professional fighting occurs in structured and organized environments where both parties engage in fighting under rules and regulations. The intent is not malicious, nor done to a defenseless agent or necessarily to cause harm. — Cobra

Yeah. So are you saying malicious intent is why beating someone is wrong, and that since boxers lack that their actions in the ring are ok?

A malicious act is so because the agent is either indifferent to - or - willing disregards the others' lack of desire to be harmed/brutalized i.e., rendering them defenseless, thus 'victimizing' them. — Cobra

But what if the “victim” is actually a willing participant, as in the Meiwes case I mentioned? The “victim” agreed to be killed and eaten, so what makes that act wrong? Meiwes did not willingly disregard the victim’s wishes, so his act, according to your definition, was not malicious.

Furthermore, what determines what harms another person is not a matter of consent, agreement or consensus. — Cobra

I agree, but harming someone seems to be ok if they’re ok with it. Actually, in the case of criminals, it seems ok even if they aren’t ok with it. What makes it ok for me to be fined, jailed, etc. against my will for committing crimes I either disagree with, or may not even know exist? I never consented to that. If I choose to harm someone because they do something I don’t like, it’s wrong; but the enforcement of laws seems to be an exception.

For example, "consent to be a beaten 3 inches of their life" is completely independent of the fact that these acts can/do cause psychological affects overtime - either (depleting) the quality of the agent and their well-being or increasing it, although the latter is doubtful. Even boxers for instance, have left over remains of demonstrable harm and impact done to their bodies. It is a fact that disregard for their regulations and properly learning to fight will cause some problems in the end. — Cobra

I’m missing whatever point you’re trying to make here.

Whether or not "boxing is wrong to participating in," now that we know this does not apply to the above, because boxing is regulated with intent to minimize as much long-term damage as possible, therefore, can be done ethically. — Cobra

Are you saying consent in boxing in inconsequential? That it would be ok to make people box, so long as there were structure, and rules, and attempts to minimize any long term damage? If not, then why is it ok to force me to abide by laws that I never consented to?

So are you saying malicious intent is why beating someone is wrong, and that since boxers lack that their actions in the ring are ok? — Pinprick

I'm saying that malicious intent (moral blindness) is typically what distinguishes between the boxer and a perpetrator. Just like rape roleplay is a vice, not necessarily a wrong conduct, but it's not consent that distinguishes the two. The former involves no defenseless agents or victims, but can be viewed as immoral to some because it would be considered a perversion of sex, like enabling the fantasies of a pedophile that loves child dolls, although there are no actual children being harmed in the making of this film.

The “victim” agreed to be killed and eaten, so what makes that act wrong? Meiwes did not willingly disregard the victim’s wishes, so his act, according to your definition, was not malicious. — Pinprick

There are "willing victims," and we see these people often. Children, Stockholm Syndrome, psychological traumas, abuse, date rape, etc.

This example is an isolated case to which someone can reasonably terminate ones own life after rational deliberation, it does not apply in all cases. It is not the fact that he agreed that would make this action right or wrong.

That it would be ok to make people box, so long as there were structure, and rules, and attempts to minimize any long term damage? If not, then why is it ok to force me to abide by laws that I never consented to? — Pinprick

Laws are constraints, not restrictions. You are not forced nor coerced to do anything. It is why the system is overflowing with law-breakers. Whatever the case, laws should not be confused with morals. While the two can be informative to each other, your reasoning for being jailed is exclusive to the rules of the law and justice system in which you breached. There is a process for overruling bad law and changing laws.

Boxing is a sport that is practiced ethically - it involves close medical treatment/examination, rules/regulations, and physical conditions that must be met; but what makes the practices ethical are not determined by what the boxers "agree" or disagree to. It is a fact that constantly getting punched in the head has long-term effects, but this is not the same of being a victim of useless and reckless killing (i.e. murder, assaults, etc..). We also have "ethical killing" with humans, it is called euthanasia, but it was not consent that distinguished this from being harmful or unharmful, or "right killing" and "wrongful killing".

It was the fact that denying this persons' right to die caused more harm than forcing them to live. Some guy that consents to be cannibalized as a science experiment is not euthanizing himself. The act is unreasonable and senseless, so just an infliction of unnecessary harm on themselves. It is why we do not amputate the limbs of people with body integrity identity disorder.

I suppose you're right but what if the relaxed criteria for the capacity to give consent, i.e. not having to be as rational as philosophical standards demand, is used for nefarious ends by unscrupulous parties. This, I believe, is the modus operandi of con-artists who lure people into seemingly lucrative deals, all with full consent, only to defraud them on the basis of some loophole that only the con-artist was aware of. Given these circumstances we must assume, to err on the side of caution, that people are, as of now, completely out of their depths on most matters that require their informed consent.

I'm saying that malicious intent (moral blindness) is typically what distinguishes between the boxer and a perpetrator. — Cobra

So...that’s a yes then?

Just like rape roleplay is a vice, not necessarily a wrong conduct, but it's not consent that distinguishes the two. — Cobra

So consent isn’t needed to role play raping someone? Isn’t doing so actual rape?

The former involves no defenseless agents or victims — Cobra

Precisely because everyone has consented.

There are "willing victims," and we see these people often. Children, Stockholm Syndrome, psychological traumas, abuse, date rape, etc. — Cobra

I don’t see how this is relevant. I’m using Meiwes’s case as an example because it illustrates, to me at least, the nuances involved in consent. Typically, harming someone against their will is considered wrong (assault), and harming someone with consent is considered permissible (boxing). Yet, Meiwes’s case seems to contradict this, as the “victim” was harmed with his consent, but the act is still viewed as wrong.

The victims in the examples you give are not capable of giving consent, because they are either mentally disordered, and therefore not thinking clearly, or are not capable of understanding what they’re consenting to.

It is not the fact that he agreed that would make this action right or wrong. — Cobra

Then what is? It isn’t malicious intent either, because Meiwes considered the victim’s wishes.

You are not forced nor coerced to do anything. — Cobra

I am forced to accept the punishments, which seems wrong since I never consented to being punished for these actions. Just like an assault victim never consented to being assaulted.

Whatever the case, laws should not be confused with morals. While the two can be informative to each other, your reasoning for being jailed is exclusive to the rules of the law and justice system in which you breached. There is a process for overruling bad law and changing laws. — Cobra

That’s all well and good, but that’s part of what I’m asking. Are laws justified since they don’t require consent? Or, is consent not needed in the case of laws? If not, why not, given that in ethics it is typically required?



Do you think this...

Boxing is a sport that is practiced ethically — Cobra

Because of this...?

it involves close medical treatment/examination, rules/regulations, and physical conditions that must be met — Cobra

but what makes the practices ethical are not determined by what the boxers "agree" or disagree to. — Cobra

Again, then what is?

It is a fact that constantly getting punched in the head has long-term effects, but this is not the same of being a victim of useless and reckless killing (i.e. murder, assaults, etc..). — Cobra

The only difference I’m seeing is consent.

We also have "ethical killing" with humans, it is called euthanasia, but it was not consent that distinguished this from being harmful or unharmful, or "right killing" and "wrongful killing". — Cobra

Well right, it’s harmful regardless, but the fact that it’s harmful isn’t what determines whether or not it’s permissible. Consent is the determining factor that decides that. I suppose you could argue intent is the determining factor, but if the doctor euthanizing the patient happens to enjoy doing so, and in fact desires to do so, the act suddenly becomes immoral.

It was the fact that denying this persons' right to die caused more harm than forcing them to live. — Cobra

But that can only be determined by the person wanting to be euthanized, and therefore requires their consent. I can’t just decide that you’re better off dead because you’re terminally ill and then euthanize you. We have a right to live, and to die, but only according to our consent in the latter case. Meiwes’s victim also had a right to die, did he not? Apparently he did not think wanting to be cannibalized was senseless, he must have had his reasons, and who are we to judge them as inadequate?

Some guy that consents to be cannibalized as a science experiment is not euthanizing himself. The act is unreasonable and senseless, so just an infliction of unnecessary harm on themselves. — Cobra

Do I not have the right to inflict unnecessary harm upon myself? If so, then there’s no reason why I don’t have the right to let you do so to me as well.

It is why we do not amputate the limbs of people with body integrity identity disorder. — Cobra

Yet if they consent to genital mutilation it’s ok (genital reassignment surgery).

I suppose you're right but what if the relaxed criteria for the capacity to give consent, i.e. not having to be as rational as philosophical standards demand, is used for nefarious ends by unscrupulous parties. This, I believe, is the modus operandi of con-artists who lure people into seemingly lucrative deals, all with full consent, only to defraud them on the basis of some loophole that only the con-artist was aware of. — TheMadFool

If you deceive someone into consenting to something, then they haven’t actually given consent, as they were not fully informed.

Given these circumstances we must assume, to err on the side of caution, that people are, as of now, completely out of their depths on most matters that require their informed consent. — TheMadFool

I think most people are reasonably capable of figuring out what they do or don’t want to happen to them. Their reasoning may be irrational or illogical, but reason is irrelevant when it comes to emotion. Not wanting to shake hands due to an irrational fear of germs doesn’t mean we should force them to shake hands anyway because it’s irrational.

But anyway, the alternative (letting others decide for us) seems worse. I’d rather be in control of deciding what I like or don’t like, rather than relying on the benevolence and omniscience required for someone else to decide for me in a satisfactory way.

The victims in the examples you give are not capable of giving consent, because they are either mentally disordered, and therefore not thinking clearly, or are not capable of understanding what they’re consenting to. — Pinprick

Which demonstrates whether someone "can" or "cannot" consent to being harmed is irrelevant to the fact that X causes harm regardless, and it is the latter in which we inform ethics.

You can 'consent' to chop off your dick, doesn't change the fact that it's a harmful and retarded thing to do. It's not increasing your overall well-being just because you enjoy it.

and it is the latter in which we inform ethics. — Cobra

Not only that though. Not all harmful acts are immoral. Some harmful acts are permissible, specifically those that are consented to.

BTW, I’m not trying to make the case that consent is the only thing needed to consider, but that when consent is obtained the act cannot be immoral. Also, that if consent can be obtained, then it should be. Hence the questioning of the justification of laws. To me, an explanation needs to be given for why consent is not obtained. If you could provide an example where consent is obtained, yet the act is still considered immoral on other grounds, then my argument would be refuted.

It's not increasing your overall well-being just because you enjoy it. — Cobra

For the sake of argument I’ll agree with this, but this fact alone doesn’t make the act immoral. Perhaps I value enjoyment more than wellbeing, therefore it isn’t “retarded.”

If you deceive someone into consenting to something, then they haven’t actually given consent, as they were not fully informed — Pinprick

My point exactly.

I think most people are reasonably capable of figuring out what they do or don’t want to happen to them. — Pinprick

This doesn't jibe with what you said above. There are probably an uncountable number of times when people have been taken for a ride not because but despite being, in your words, "...reasonably capable...". All it takes is a twisted mind and a sharp eye and you'll see the loophole with which you can take people down the garden path.

All that said, I don't mean to lessen the importance of consent in moral issues and, by extension, in law but be warned that consent per se shouldn't be treated as the final word in moral judgments and legal matters for it can be, as you seem to agree, coaxed out of people using underhand tricks and gimmicks.

Yes, consent can be manipulated, or coerced, but that’s not the ideal we would be striving for, so I’m not sure that’s really a counter argument. The point is to strive to obtain fully informed consent, but the government does not try to do so. Instead, the onus is on each citizen to seek out and learn the law, which is asking a lot. I would actually be surprised if there was anyone, be it a lawyer, police officer, judge, or whoever, that actually knows what every law is. Therefore, I find punishing people for violating rules they weren’t even aware of to be immoral. I feel the same about forcing people to live by standards they don’t agree with. Fully informed consent would seemingly resolve these concerns. In at least some areas, consent is considered necessary to obtain for act to be moral. So, the real question is is it wrong to punish others for breaking laws that they were never fully made aware of or consented to? Why, or why not?