Discussion Stop using the consent argument!

[Deleted member 8119]

This argument implies consent should be decisive when doing a decision. I think that's a bad idea. Sounds appealing given this forum theme, but you'd be surprised lf how much double-edge it has.

Everything has impact on others. Your right to die wouldn't mean anything if there isn't people consenting to grief. People can also be wrong in what they want or not. Someone may not be in a good mind state and want to hurt themself. Should we let people to fall in substance addiction because they want it? Even worse, should we let that same people influence others or put others in danger because said effects?

Anti-natalists are way worse. According to their thoughts, life implies non-consent into being born, despite not being anyone who can consent in first place. Consent is a product lf existence, so this argument is flawed: there is no consent to be here, but neither to not, everything can be used against you as well. The other day, someone made a thread, if button that would send everyone out of existence, and many of them said no, because the existing people can't consent. This idea of consent is so bizarre because it implies we live in a world full of it while ot isn't. Go to the previous paragraph: your choice affects others too, other's non-consent to disappear affects other's non-consent to be born. I don't have this problem, because I don't follow your argument, and it's a problem only you have to explain. To their favor, it's true the already born can't consent while being raised, because kids are incapable of autonomy.

Consent matters, and I'm not saying to disregard others, but to be critical with them. Unwanted bad things suck more, but unwanted good things still necessary. Wanted bad things are still bad, though. If I someone I loved went broke, I'd give them money, even if they never asked for it, even if they refused it later. It's what's good for them. And I know controlling people too much is a problem, there are huge problems woth bans to assiated suicide. However, you should distinguish good and bad consent, and not accepting all just because you had none.

 

[vak]

I'm getting lost in your argument, I'm trying to understand the big picture here. Yes, you cannot consent to everything and some choices were made for you, good or bad, but it doesn't mean consent stops being the goal and individual choices should not be respected and enabled.

Should we let people to fall in substance addiction because they want it?

Why not? I've had close people abusing substances and unless they ask for my help it's their decision and not my place to judge. I can offer help but I need to be prepared that the help can be rejected. Happens all the time, especially here.

Even worse, should we let that same people influence others or put others in danger because said effects?

But isn't the point that you are protecting the choices of those others involved? As they didn't consent to the danger? I think protecting them is in line with respecting their consent because it defaults to non-harm. It's always tricky when more people are considered. It's a trolley problem essentialy in this particular case.

Your right to die wouldn't mean anything if there isn't people consenting to grief.

I think most suicidal people are aware and distressed that they are harming others by their choice and that that's something not inherently a moral choice and should not be dismissed easily. It crosses some threshold where their choice to end their life is too strong to ask for permission by others. But fundamentally, I think most of us views the impact at least as somewhat problematic if we have people in our lives who care about us. And probably would want to avoid grief.

If I someone I loved went broke, I'd give them money, even if they never asked for it, even if they refused it later. It's what's good for them.

That just sounds controlling and invalidating, sorry, I would run away from you as far as I could. The ability to refuse something even when the giver is convinced that's the right choice is important.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's an interesting argument but it isn't black and white. Take someone suffering from dementia for example. They may ask you for a cup of tea. You make it, they drink it and 5 minutes later, they ask you for a cup of tea. Do you make them another? Why not? It won't likely do them any harm. If however, they say they want to put all their savings on the lottery next week. They want to sell their house, their car, everything they own because they're sure they've got the winning numbers- they probably need talking out of it. There may even need to be a lasting power of attorney written up if they are starting to gamble away all their money. There tend to be limits to which we allow people to harm themselves but that is usually because it can be medically supported that they don't have full mental capacity to be able to make these choices.

Of course- this has a very strong bearing on suicide. Some will argue that no one who wants to suicide has the mental capacity to be able to make that decision- because they are suicidal and, that isn't 'normal'. I'd disagree with that personally. I don't think all that want to suicide are mentally ill and I don't think all mental illness equates with reduced capacity.

But, I would concede that it's possible for a person to want to commit suicide impulsively or in some kind of psychosis- so, I actually don't have a problem with someone say being interrupted from a very public attempt. You have to wonder why they ignored it being so probable they would be stopped for one- they could have chosen a quieter time of day or night to do it. They could have chosen a more private method. It's what then happens I have a problem with. I don't think people should be involuntarily be given drugs in a psyche ward for instance although, I imagine they would need to be evaluated in one.

Freedom to choose is important- clearly. It gives people just that- freedom. Plus- it protects them. I hope you wouldn't argue that consent is paramount when it comes to sex and an adult having sex with a minor is always rape.

But- as for your argument- we shouldn't commit suicide because our loved ones didn't consent to grieve. Sorry but, the antinatilist argument surely does work the same there. Children don't consent to watch their parents die one day or, to die before them. My Mum died when I was 3. If my parents had been able to ask me if I wanted to come into this world, to lose my Mum before I barely had the chance to form any memories of her- I probably would have politely passed on that! Sure- we don't know our futures. We don't know our children's futures but- I can absolutely 100% guarantee you one thing- there will be death in them! Likely multiple deaths. Both people they knew, loved and will mourn and their own one day. If it's important that we try and spare people grief and I agree- it is, then anti-natilism does fit into that argument.

 

[wait.what]

Should we let people to fall in substance addiction because they want it?

Yes. Recovery is the classic example of something you can't force someone into. You can lock people up to keep them from using, but that's not recovery. That's just warehousing human bodies. The U.S. does that a lot, more than any other nation, and not only is sobriety not self-sustaining under those conditions, it's often not even sobriety. If you're in prison and you want alcohol or drugs badly enough, you can get them.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the consent to grief argument. It sounds like a variation on the "suicide is so selfish" theme. For some reason, people who say this never stop to wonder if it's selfish to demand that someone in intractable anguish ought to live on and on, solely for the pleasure of other people. I don't know what kind of pleasure can be derived from looking at an unwashed human wrapped in a blanket cocoon, just breathing and staring at a wall, but some people sure seem convinced something's pleasant about it.

I suspect those who aggressively peddle the "suicide is selfish" line are the relatives who call their miserable family members once or twice a year, but I admit I can't prove it.

 

[QueerMelancholy]

In my silly opinion, the idea of consent implies that we have free will in the agreement to do something but not completely in the permission for something to happen (to us) because there are so many variables involved that are either wholly out of our control such as our biology or in degrees of variation out of our control such as our financial situations (concerning our need to afford basic necessities), and our environments.

Consent and the idea of free will both are double-edged swords used to validate one person and as a weapon against another. But humans are very much interested in finding multiple ways of protecting their own egos and trying to control others to create a safe space for themselves while mostly ignoring whatever falls out of their system of values, ideology, or perception.

Consent works in small person-to-person interactions and through transactional agreements socially, economically, and through the usage of services.

The free will argument alone I find very annoying and silly because when does one gain free will? Before conception? During conception? In the womb? People seem to only enjoy the idea of free will when they can use it to feel like they either earned something to validate their feelings of success or entitlement or when it's used to punish others. Concerning free will as the idea that we can play an active role and have a choice in how we behave one can say that free will only shows up when one is capable of being self-determined and expressing autonomy but as I said previously a lot of how we behave and interact with the world depends on so many variables out of our control.

It's all very confusing to me, to be honest. I find a lot of it absurd in how humans have fought for so long to separate themselves from nature and yet want to remain in control of it. Nature itself is amoral and uninterested in the rightness or wrongness of anything. I'd say nature is only interested in balance. But humans are chaotic creatures who know that they will die one day and have to live with that idea and constantly try to stave off the feelings of existential dread and terror. The funny part is death is a natural part of the life cycle and yet so many people fear it for themselves and others. Medicine, over-medicalization, technology, proper sewage management, access to clean drinking water, etcetera leads to longer life expectancies and yet so much of the world we live in is weighed on a scale of the cost of production and profitability.

Every action has a reaction. And the world will spin for many more years even after we are all gone. I feel like we spend so much time talking in circles trying to make sense of a world that is so far down the path of absurdity that we almost waste time doing it. Not in the sense that talking about problems doesn't help to solve these problems but in the sense that we seem to do it mostly out of boredom. We live such long lives now that a lot of it is spent whiling away at a seemingly endless existence even when we know we all will die someday.

TL;DR: I agree with you that the consent argument is broken and I'd say that it is almost as faulty as the free will argument.

 

[vak]

Anti-natalists are way worse. According to their thoughts, life implies non-consent into being born, despite not being anyone who can consent in first place. Consent is a product lf existence, so this argument is flawed: there is no consent to be here, but neither to not, everything can be used against you as well.

I come from a very strong animal rights abolitionist background (really don't want to argue about it here, please let's not, I'm open to PMs if somebody needs to voice their disagreement with not abusing animals) and a good model we use there is that if you can't ask for somebody's consent, you simply don't have their consent, end of story. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the consenter doesn't exist, humans are blessed/cursed with the ability to imagine abstract things and materialize the outcoming concepts.

Helpful analogy could be the idea of an animal born into a slaughterhouse. It is something we can at least imagine the animal would not consent to (and definitely cannot consent to), hence it's immoral within this framework to make it happen and we have the moral obligation to prevent it from happening and to reduce suffering (if we are the moral agents, not talking about nature). That would be the anti-natalist position for humans.

I'm not anti-natalist, but I disagree with the notion that consent requires consenter to exist, practical battle-tested ethical frameworks that don't have this requirement already exist elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

I'm getting lost in your argument, I'm trying to understand the big picture here. Yes, you cannot consent to everything and some choices were made for you, good or bad, but it doesn't mean consent stops being the goal and individual choices should not be respected and enabled.

First, thanks for putting time in your replies, they are good points :). The point I tried to make was, there are good and bad choices and not everything should be allowed.

Why not? I've had close people abusing substances and unless they ask for my help it's their decision and not my place to judge. I can offer help but I need to be prepared that the help can be rejected. Happens all the time, especially here.

@wait.what, you made the same point. I was careful and chose substance abuse because you must deliberately put yourself there. For a sober person, it's a choice that would led them nowhere, they would only lose. The problems of drugs are worse than the kick they give, and are potentially life-ruining. It's true some things don't get better once they started, though.

But isn't the point that you are protecting the choices of those others involved? As they didn't consent to the danger? I think protecting them is in line with respecting their consent because it defaults to non-harm. It's always tricky when more people are considered. It's a trolley problem essentialy in this particular case.

Yeah, that's the thing. If someome consented to violate others consent, which one was more important? I prefer choosing based on consequences, I agree with non-harm there, but our methods vary.

I think most suicidal people are aware and distressed that they are harming others by their choice and that that's something not inherently a moral choice and should not be dismissed easily. It crosses some threshold where their choice to end their life is too strong to ask for permission by others. But fundamentally, I think most of us views the impact at least as somewhat problematic if we have people in our lives who care about us. And probably would want to avoid grief.

To clarify, I never wanted to invalidate anyone's right to die or grief. Both are huge duels. I am aware the struggles people suffer for their loved ones. But ultimately, there would be no right to die for most people if one was to take consent of the most. It's not bad not wanting to cause trauma to others, but as you said, there comes a point when the person just can't do that. Having both been there and lost aomeone myself, that mental pain is the worst of all, and harder than grief. It's how it is, loss is terrible, but at least, people aren't usually at a lowest point and can live not as terribly with it than the horrors of suicidality and whatever led to there.

That just sounds controlling and invalidating, sorry, I would run away from you as far as I could. The ability to refuse something even when the giver is convinced that's the right choice is important.

I'm the one who is sorry if it sounded harsh. Obviously, I wouldn't hold anyone at gunpoint to take my money. If I can't do anything, I'd just move on. I would just insist them to take it, because I imagine homelessness hits harder than accepting some money.

I come from a very strong animal rights abolitionist background (and a good model we use there is that if you can't ask for somebody's consent, you simply don't have their consent, end of story. It doesn't matter in the slightest that the consenter doesn't exist, humans are blessed/cursed with the ability to imagine abstract things and materialize the outcoming concepts.

I see two flaws: there is no somebody at all, and the being can't consent to not be in the slaughterhouse. Sadly, you get the same answer if it was a sanctuary, shich is no amswer at all. Once the being is here then it does matter, and they should be treated nicely.

Life is unpredictable, and it's impossible to know what will someone consent or not, you can only get an idea. Many people like to suffer, and would willingly put themselves in positions we wouldn't ever want for ourselves. Even if we assure an ideal scenario for a future person, maybe they won't like it, or worse, develop se disease which is also impossible to foresee and ruin it all.

TL;DR: I agree with you that the consent argument is broken and I'd say that it is almost as faulty as the free will argument.

Which free will argument? There are many concepts of it, with many definitions and arguments each. When one does gain free will depends on each of them, but for me, the ability to make choices is physical and in the brain, when it develops, you start gaining it.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I personally think that the consent argument does fail but not because of your reason. You claim that the consent argument is flawed because the non existent cannot consent in the first place as they aren't existent yet but... that isn't the flaw of the consent argument; that's the consent argument itself. They support the consent argument because there consent is impossible to acquire from a non existent being as they are non existent.

I personally think that the flaw in the consent argument comes from why should consent be used here? I mean, consent isn't this thing that should be used in all cases. After all, I'm sure that we admit that it's better to lock criminals up against their consent... it'd be stupid to let a criminal roam free because they didn't consent to going to jail. I've yet to see an antinatalist argue as to why consent should be abided when it comes to procreation

 

[vak]

@Proteus

Before I start, there's no need to apologize. I hope we're just having a friendly discussion. I'm not offended by anything you say, and I hope you don't take my critique personally

I've thought about it for a while, and I see your point. I chose the abolitionist view because it aligns with the negative utilitarian philosophy, which I believe also fits well with anti-natalism. Both philosophies fundamentally aim to reduce suffering over increasing utility/happiness.

When deciding whether a being should exist, just questioning the consent might not be enough. You also need to predict the outcome of their existence. Then it isn't only about consent, it's about your outlook which need to be based on something else. So, anti-natalism and similar negative utilitarian views combine two things: the expected outcome of an action and whether there's consent, especially if the action could cause harm. I don't think they can be separated but I also think that the consent is still in part required as I described if your prediction is somehow outside of tolerable threshold of suffering.

Anti-natalists might argue that all life leads to harm, and the threshold of suffering should be precisely zero, which matches negative utilitarianism's goal to prevent it. But then it becomes not only about consent; it's part of a larger philosophical stance and in reality, I don't think this is a position of most parents who choose to create a new life, so why would they feel the need to require imagined consent?

I might need to think more about this. You've slightly changed my view, and I appreciate the thought-provoking discussion. My practical stance doesn't change, especially regarding animal rights, since we understand the realities of animal farming. However, for anti-natalists who approach this more theoretically, it might be worth revisiting the topic.

 

[Slow_Farewell]

Brave post, and it makes sense.

 

[DoomValuer]

Consent is a product lf existence, so this argument is flawed

The error in your argument lies precisely here, assuming consent is given because you can't ask for it sounds exactly like one of those pro-zoophilia arguments, yes, having a "default" clause for consent sounds convenient but it can also do so much harm.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

The error in your argument lies precisely here, assuming consent is given because you can't ask for it sounds exactly like one of those pro-zoophilia arguments, yes, having a "default" clause for consent sounds convenient but it can also do so much harm.

I really hope you don't think I'm pro-zoophilia. :(

The argument was that what's good for someone is more important than their (non-existent) ability to consent, or else, you couldn't do anything good either. This is clearly NOT the case for zoophila, or any for of abuse. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

 

[DoomValuer]

I really hope you don't think I'm pro-zoophilia. :(

To clarify, I do not think that you support zoophiles or any of that.

The argument was that what's good for someone is more important than their (non-existent) ability to consent, or else, you couldn't do anything good either. This is clearly NOT the case for zoophila, or any for of abuse. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

Fair point.