We are forced to get jobs because of our parents own financial failures. Before having kids, make sure you're rich. Am I right? Build a trust fund for kids.
Consent is a right, but rights don't exist, only powers. Collectively society can use their collective power to protect you from the consequences of something you do and we call that a "right", you don't have it, society infers it. You neither belong to society before you are born nor do you have any powers to prevent ourselves from being born or any powers to influence society. But I agree we should be given good options to leave. Have you left yet?
I don't like the little bit of gymnastics you did to say that consent/lack of consent does or doesn't equal what you want to happen. I think it's better to consider consent and expressions of consent as separate. I consent to my coworker eating my cookie, but I will not express that consent because I believe that things that I do not consent to will happen as a result. However, if my coworker takes a cookie without me offering it, I will not say no or get angry because I wanted him to have the cookie. Also, I think that an uninformed person can give consent. They only need to know what they decide is enough information to make the decision. If my friend asks to store a box of toys in my garage, and I consent to that, and it turns out that it was a box with a bomb in it. My consent wasn't invalid because of ignorance; I never consented in the first place. I consented to a box of toys. I did not consent to a bomb. Now, if my friend simply asked to store a box in my garage, and I consented, then the contents of the box were irrelevant to my consent.
Phoenix Fire false on the context of the box argument. There are explicit and implicit consenting, and that depends on how good are your social skills. If you are my friend and ask me to store a box in my house I would agree. If the box has a bomb in it, no matter of I am informed or not of it, I am calling the cops and removing you from my life, because I perceive your actions as intention for harm. You need to understand that the main components of consent a are intentions, trust and perceptions
loopuleasa I never said that you didn't have the ability to take that person out of your life. You can still get mad at them for doing something you didn't want them to do, something you consider outside their character, but you cannot get mad at them for doing so without your consent. You consented to the box without knowing what was in it. That was an act of trust, or more accurately of belief that you know the other person well enough. Let's create a different example that doesn't deal with the separate issue of the law. While we're at it, let's make it sexual, because that's what people really want to talk about. Say you're dating someone, and you're about to have sex for the 3rd time in your relationship. You give them permission to do anything. That's when you find out that they're an anal person. You wouldn't have consented to anal if you knew that's what they wanted. But, you did consent. You felt consent, and you expressed it, undoubtedly. You can get made at them for not being into what you're into, but you cannot get mad at them for violating your consent, because they didn't. Just to be clear, I believe that sufficiently deviant behavior must be expressed and must receive a higher degree of expression of consent. Anal isn't uncommon in our society and shouldn't require too much of a warning.
To see the difference between consent and desire, consider this example: an mobile service provider offers unlimited data plan for 10$/month. They have given you permission to download as much as you want. They desire you only occasionally check the e-mail, but they have essentially given consent to binge watch all your favourite sitcoms.
Rūdolfs Mazurs The real difference is between collective thought/action and individual thought/action. Data companies aren't considering every individual person. They're considering the total, the average, and the gradients. I alone don't have the ability to violate that consent. I certainly can't violate the expressed consent, because I can't go higher than unlimited. Also, the way you use desire is different from the video's use. You use it as "what is wanted most". They use it as "what is truly wanted". Your use of the word isn't relevant to consent. Their use is consent.
I am not convinced by the thesis that consent is not desire. We can say that when we do not give consent, we are giving instructions of what we do not want; not wanting x admits a description in terms of what you want in the form "All I want about x is Y", where Y could be an alternative situation to x. The author has not shown why we cannot make these kinds of descriptions, where a form of desire is opposed to a form of non-desire, when we decide (aka normative power) something about consent.
Punocchio consent is based on communication, trust and rights. It can be clearly stated or implied, depending on context. You need social skills to figure out people's intentions and consent, through social cues. Takes practice
Not necessarily; it can also be based on physical cues. For example, if I asked you "Can I have 1 of your fries?", and you nodded your head up and down in response, we'd probably agree that means "yes" and that you consented to me eating 1 of your fries.
Is consent the only normative power? It is implied but not stated that more that one type of such powers exist, but I can't really think of another example..
Yeah good, but autonomy ends with ones body. For sure rights can and do extend to property but for me those rights are not of the same order. They're social, secondary, contingent, and up for negotiation in a way that ones autonomy of mind and body isn't, or at least shouldn't be. Vital distinction.
Hope J: I wouldn't count a child as having the same autonomy as an adult the same as i wouldn't count animals other than humans either. I can't justify that decision objectively, but it's generally agreed upon, hence our not usually holding children and other animals as fully responsible for their actions in the same way as human adults. On your other point, yes the state can and do do that, but I consider it morally wrong for them to do so unless it can be justified as punishment for a transgression against other people's physical automony. For me someone transgressing another's physical autonomy loses their right to physical autonomy up to the seriousness of that they transgressed, so for example, it's Ok to physically imnprison someone who's murdered. But for me it's not Ok to imprison someone who's say, stolen something, as that doesn't transgress anyone's physical autonomy. It's a social matter (i.e. it's anti-social0 and for me any consequences for it should be social in return, not physical.
I feel as though the parameters for consent are too loosely defined in this formulation, particularly the last 2. The first one, fine, only a rational actor can give consent. The second one only addresses false information, and not cases where an actor is uninformed. What if I was never informed about what is in the box and I agree to it? Or if I didn't fully understand what was told to me. If for example I agree to keep a box of old cloths and later on I find that they are smellier than I thought they'd be, was my previous consent invalid because I didn't realize how musty the old cloths were, even though I knew they were old? Then you can get into deeper epistemological territory and question if we can truly know the full ramifications of any action, thus be able to consent to it. The third point also only addresses a very clear cut example that fails to account for edge cases. Every decision we make is influenced by others in some capacity, so are we ever truly making a free decision? If I insentient someone directly, or they feel obligated for a reason unknown to me, or if I convince someone to change their mind through reason can they give consent? You could cite the "degrees" argument to address this ambiguity, but there are problems with that too. To say consent exists on a slider dosn't really wok given its basis in moral action. While yes things don't have to exist in a binary, morality lens itself to being binary in that something is either right or wrong. As a moral actor, what does 75% consent mean to be and my actions towards a person? while someone can feel varying degrees of comfort with an action, they must either consent to its action making it OK to do or not; i.e you cannot almost cut someones hair. The video itself makes the distinction between one's desires for an action and the consent given for the action, accounting for the degree of agreement one can have with an action were consent is still a binary.
Doesn't putting something on a sliding scale mean it falls under the paradox of the heap? And what about tacit consent? If you live in a country, you may not be competent, informed, or in some cases free, but they still give their tacit consent. And doesn't it pose a moral problem when someone "can't" give consent? Like children or intoxicated people, how can anything be done to them? If a child said she doesn't want to go to school, but her parents make her, how is that ethical? And what if, it turns out, she has a good reason for not wanting to go to school (say the teachers beat the students, which is legal in the USA). And suppose the parents know this, but they don't care. This happens a lot in the USA, but it seems wrong for neglectful parents to be given the right to consent when the daughter wishes not to.
so if a drunk man gets in his car and kills a few cats an a teenager on his way home should not be prosecuted cause "no valid desicion making abilities"? I mean how is that different, i,e making sbdy dead due to your lack of valid making abilities, to a drunk woman that consents (the "car and a green light that in fact is red") to have sex with someone, thus making him a rapist (as far as her consent is not valid)?
This is such an overused argument I'm surprised that you wrote it on this platform as a valid response. In the case of rape, which can happen to and from any gender by the way, it would involve a competent person acting on an incompetent person. Perhaps we turn it around and suppose that the person who is incompetent at the time found a competent person and raped them. Although it has not always been the case, that person would still have to be held accountable under the law. It is completely different than a competent person taking advantage of incompetent person's inability to make calculated decisions to violate their personal autonomy. Why someone, in a world with so many injustices, would take their time to defend rape, is a mystery to me. It would seem to be much more productive, beneficial, and just to spend your time concerning yourself with something else.
@@serenajuhuisuh so how much incompetence is incompetent? 2,3,4,5 drinks? I dont argue against the case that the person cant even keep his/her eyes open or cant spell a comprehensible word or anything like that. I am arguing against the case that sb is "off his mind" (i.e doing "crazy things, like putting his pants down while dancing on the bar), freed from moral restrains the case that ones inhibition and decision making (compared to what he/she would have done or not have done if sober, and shy and with low confidence) is affected by alcohol . The case that makes you regret for something you did while drunk. Regret over a sexual intercourse while drunk, very often is presented as "he took advance of her condition" and "rape", which imo is not (just regret, and sbdy not being like a parent to you), especially if i am drunk too
I don't agree with those conditions of valid consent. If I am uninformed that is my problem. And so long as we are abiding by the first rule I should be capable of solving that problem. In your example the first person is fully aware that it is possible for the friend to lie about the contents of the box. It is their responsibility to evaluate the risk that comes with that choice. Anyone not capable of making that choice fails at the first rule. All consent is under duress, this is the nature of consent. You allow permit behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable because not doing so would cost you something. You consent to a rental contract because not doing so would leave you homeless. You consent to the undesirable person coming to your party because not doing so would cost you social currency. There is good duress and bad duress. If inflicting the consequences of withholding consent would be moral in other circumstances then it is ok. It is ok for a rental agency to not give you a home as they are not obligated to share their property. Regardless the consent is valid in and of itself, the morality of the inducement is a separate matter. It is up to the decision maker to determine if the juice is worth the squeeze. Anyone not able to do so fails the first rule. Tl:dr the first rule is the only one that is really necessary.
"Tl:dr the first rule is the only one that is really necessary" So being informed isn't important for consent to be valid? What if I, say, very cleverly hid the bomb inside 1 of the toys such that you wouldn't realise it without breaking the toy open? Would your consenting to hold the box still be valid if you had to go to extreme lengths to eliminate/evaluate all possible risk?
if you the property you think you own is on Earth land/water/etc that was stolen through colonization (noconsensual), you dont have the same rights as Native people who's land/water was stolen, or descendents.
Consent is a good tool to protect women, but it shouldn't be expected from people who know nothing of it. Some people think they have to go for the kiss instead of asking for it.
One thing I always found interesting is that a drunk girl apparently cannot consent but drunk drivers are held responsible. Why is one responsible for their actions when another isn't?
Not Squirrel I think there's a significant difference between how drunk one is in those cases. The point at which you're not able to give consent with regards to your body is way higher than two beers (the level beyond which you'd be drunk driving in most countries in Europe). I'd be interested in a philosophical analysis, though; maybe there is a difference between bodily consent and causing harm to others (due to the increased accident risk)?
Not Squirrel When you weren't drunk, you could have made the decision to not drive. You could have taken a ride share car to your location or asked a friend to drive you. On a more practical (and somewhat messed up) note. Rape laws were originally made to protect fathers and husbands from having their daughters and wives raped. We've changed the intention to protect prepubescent girls, and then expanded those rights from there to teenage and adult women, prepubescent boys, and sometimes teenage and adult men. Given that a lot of things were tacked on later, they are also enforced that way. Adult women unfortunately find it pretty hard to go to the police and claim date rape, and then get an actual conviction. Now, drunk driving is pretty straightforward. It was made with the intent to protect other drivers and pedestrians, and even the drunk driver to some extent. So the consent issue doesn't play much of a role with regard to how the law is made. It's harm reduction with respect to lives, where as rape laws are about bodily atonomy.
Not Squirrel Consent and responsibility are different things. A drunk driver is responsible for causing harm. A drunk person is not responsible for others causing harm to them.
obvious_humor A drunk person, if they are drunk of their own accord, is still responsible for their own actions though. And if a person, even a drunk one, agrees coherently to participate in an activity that will ultimately harm them, they are responsible for their involvement in that activity.
Seven, I just assumed you are from USA, thus “land of the free”, whatever that means. As for “tax free zones” there are couple of those, and if you are wondering why people tend to not live in those, you might find out a lot of interesting things.
While these are entertaining philosophical considerations (degrees of consent, validity of consent), for all practical purposes consent should be considered always valid, binary, and always equal to desire.
Imagine you give consent to having a tattoo. Just before the needle hits your skin, you freak out and withdraw your consent. Can the tattoo artist then continue to make the tattoo against your explicit will?
You're misunderstanding. Consent can only be withdrawn before the act that was consented to is complete. Stop before it starts, or before it finishes. But not once its complete.
Withdraw consent? What the hell? She sleeps with you the previous night, regrets it later tomorrow, and says she's been a victim of sexual assault because she now withdraws her consent. Are you mad? This barrage of bullocks is neither moral nor legal, and infringes on the rights of the consented party as well as making a mockery of the notion of consent. Consent cannot be withdrawn at whim. Consent is a binding personal or social contract that all involved parties must honor at the pain of indemnity or incarceration or even capital punishment.
Ozan Yarman I think I've overheared that you can withdraw consent. However I think that a girl that slept with you (after giving you consent) can withdraw that consent by saying that she doesn't want to sleep with you again. Withdrawing consent after something happened however really leads to weird outcomes.
Withdrawing consent is normal. Even for buying a product you have a 30 day return policy. If a person was intoxicated or not in her normal state, of course she wouldn't see last night as valid consent, and she just won't want to hang out with you any more
nothing in the video suggests that they were talking about _retroactively_ withdrawing consent. i invite you to a party, then i dis-invite you. i have withdrawn consent and you shouldn't come. this is different from having you invited and deciding to accuse you of trespassing after the party. but yeah, evil straw feminists are everywhere and out to get you..
Withdrawal of consent doesn't imply retroactively withdrawing consent. Breaking up with someone is withdrawing consent, but it is not implying that them sleeping with you before that is now against your consent. Perhaps retroactively revoking consent (e.g., by saying "I never consented willingly") might be an interesting topic for future video though.
There are many problems in this video. Letting someone cut your hair isn't waiving your right, is exercising it. You aren't acting against your desires to not let your favorite co-worker eat your cookies, you're acting on your greater desire to not be bothered by others. I stopped watching. This person doesn't understand consent.
Why do any philosophy then, we don't need this as much as we don't need aesthetics or metaphysics. And who says "we" need it, can't the discussion simply be for those who want it?
brandon brisbane I guess you're right in implying that interests are subjective, but I think this video just explains common sense and is overly simplistic. Do you want to help me understand why you "want" this video?
Common sense is a myth. What makes obvious sense to you won't to other people. To me, its obvious that a video on a philosophy channel was made to spark intellectual curiosity on a subject, but that wasn't as apparent to you. I "want" this video for the same reason I want a video on any conceptual topic, to think about its bounds and its properties. Just because you have a workable understanding of a topic, doesn't make it obvious and doesn't even mean you truly understand the topic either. That's why talking in depth about this or any topic is important.
Very clear, talks at a great pace, calm, simple, no jargon. BRILLIANT.
No one consents to being born and after being forced to be here we're not even given good options to leave when and how we want.
We are forced to get jobs because of our parents own financial failures. Before having kids, make sure you're rich. Am I right? Build a trust fund for kids.
It would do you good to reject that meaningless "consent" talk.
Consent is a right, but rights don't exist, only powers. Collectively society can use their collective power to protect you from the consequences of something you do and we call that a "right", you don't have it, society infers it. You neither belong to society before you are born nor do you have any powers to prevent ourselves from being born or any powers to influence society. But I agree we should be given good options to leave. Have you left yet?
You goddamn right, Gattsu...Fuck this place man. I hate it here.
This is exactly what I think about right now!
I don't like the little bit of gymnastics you did to say that consent/lack of consent does or doesn't equal what you want to happen.
I think it's better to consider consent and expressions of consent as separate. I consent to my coworker eating my cookie, but I will not express that consent because I believe that things that I do not consent to will happen as a result. However, if my coworker takes a cookie without me offering it, I will not say no or get angry because I wanted him to have the cookie.
Also, I think that an uninformed person can give consent. They only need to know what they decide is enough information to make the decision. If my friend asks to store a box of toys in my garage, and I consent to that, and it turns out that it was a box with a bomb in it. My consent wasn't invalid because of ignorance; I never consented in the first place. I consented to a box of toys. I did not consent to a bomb. Now, if my friend simply asked to store a box in my garage, and I consented, then the contents of the box were irrelevant to my consent.
Phoenix Fire false on the context of the box argument. There are explicit and implicit consenting, and that depends on how good are your social skills. If you are my friend and ask me to store a box in my house I would agree. If the box has a bomb in it, no matter of I am informed or not of it, I am calling the cops and removing you from my life, because I perceive your actions as intention for harm.
You need to understand that the main components of consent a are intentions, trust and perceptions
loopuleasa I never said that you didn't have the ability to take that person out of your life. You can still get mad at them for doing something you didn't want them to do, something you consider outside their character, but you cannot get mad at them for doing so without your consent. You consented to the box without knowing what was in it. That was an act of trust, or more accurately of belief that you know the other person well enough.
Let's create a different example that doesn't deal with the separate issue of the law. While we're at it, let's make it sexual, because that's what people really want to talk about. Say you're dating someone, and you're about to have sex for the 3rd time in your relationship. You give them permission to do anything. That's when you find out that they're an anal person. You wouldn't have consented to anal if you knew that's what they wanted. But, you did consent. You felt consent, and you expressed it, undoubtedly. You can get made at them for not being into what you're into, but you cannot get mad at them for violating your consent, because they didn't.
Just to be clear, I believe that sufficiently deviant behavior must be expressed and must receive a higher degree of expression of consent. Anal isn't uncommon in our society and shouldn't require too much of a warning.
To see the difference between consent and desire, consider this example: an mobile service provider offers unlimited data plan for 10$/month. They have given you permission to download as much as you want. They desire you only occasionally check the e-mail, but they have essentially given consent to binge watch all your favourite sitcoms.
Rūdolfs Mazurs
The real difference is between collective thought/action and individual thought/action. Data companies aren't considering every individual person. They're considering the total, the average, and the gradients. I alone don't have the ability to violate that consent. I certainly can't violate the expressed consent, because I can't go higher than unlimited.
Also, the way you use desire is different from the video's use. You use it as "what is wanted most". They use it as "what is truly wanted". Your use of the word isn't relevant to consent. Their use is consent.
This is very important in these times.
I am not convinced by the thesis that consent is not desire. We can say that when we do not give consent, we are giving instructions of what we do not want; not wanting x admits a description in terms of what you want in the form "All I want about x is Y", where Y could be an alternative situation to x. The author has not shown why we cannot make these kinds of descriptions, where a form of desire is opposed to a form of non-desire, when we decide (aka normative power) something about consent.
Cool video, I love the clarity and breakdown of the explanations. Very useful.
Why was the previous video deleted?
Caly Nguyen, he didn't have consent
A good topic so beneficial for me in Indonesia
Is consent only verbal and written language based?
Punocchio consent is based on communication, trust and rights. It can be clearly stated or implied, depending on context. You need social skills to figure out people's intentions and consent, through social cues. Takes practice
Not necessarily; it can also be based on physical cues. For example, if I asked you "Can I have 1 of your fries?", and you nodded your head up and down in response, we'd probably agree that means "yes" and that you consented to me eating 1 of your fries.
Why was this video taken down the first time?
Is consent the only normative power? It is implied but not stated that more that one type of such powers exist, but I can't really think of another example..
promising is another
some philosophers say another normative power, in addition to promising like Cora said, is demanding
It seems that consent covers a wider area than sex here. It seems to be about not putting upon someone in general.
Yeah good, but autonomy ends with ones body. For sure rights can and do extend to property but for me those rights are not of the same order. They're social, secondary, contingent, and up for negotiation in a way that ones autonomy of mind and body isn't, or at least shouldn't be. Vital distinction.
Hope J: I wouldn't count a child as having the same autonomy as an adult the same as i wouldn't count animals other than humans either. I can't justify that decision objectively, but it's generally agreed upon, hence our not usually holding children and other animals as fully responsible for their actions in the same way as human adults.
On your other point, yes the state can and do do that, but I consider it morally wrong for them to do so unless it can be justified as punishment for a transgression against other people's physical automony. For me someone transgressing another's physical autonomy loses their right to physical autonomy up to the seriousness of that they transgressed, so for example, it's Ok to physically imnprison someone who's murdered. But for me it's not Ok to imprison someone who's say, stolen something, as that doesn't transgress anyone's physical autonomy. It's a social matter (i.e. it's anti-social0 and for me any consequences for it should be social in return, not physical.
I feel as though the parameters for consent are too loosely defined in this formulation, particularly the last 2. The first one, fine, only a rational actor can give consent.
The second one only addresses false information, and not cases where an actor is uninformed. What if I was never informed about what is in the box and I agree to it? Or if I didn't fully understand what was told to me. If for example I agree to keep a box of old cloths and later on I find that they are smellier than I thought they'd be, was my previous consent invalid because I didn't realize how musty the old cloths were, even though I knew they were old? Then you can get into deeper epistemological territory and question if we can truly know the full ramifications of any action, thus be able to consent to it.
The third point also only addresses a very clear cut example that fails to account for edge cases. Every decision we make is influenced by others in some capacity, so are we ever truly making a free decision? If I insentient someone directly, or they feel obligated for a reason unknown to me, or if I convince someone to change their mind through reason can they give consent? You could cite the "degrees" argument to address this ambiguity, but there are problems with that too.
To say consent exists on a slider dosn't really wok given its basis in moral action. While yes things don't have to exist in a binary, morality lens itself to being binary in that something is either right or wrong. As a moral actor, what does 75% consent mean to be and my actions towards a person? while someone can feel varying degrees of comfort with an action, they must either consent to its action making it OK to do or not; i.e you cannot almost cut someones hair. The video itself makes the distinction between one's desires for an action and the consent given for the action, accounting for the degree of agreement one can have with an action were consent is still a binary.
i really liked this and found it quite informal and easy to watch :) thank you!
The engineering of consent by deception. The name of the political dirty game.
So when did I consent to being taxed?
Bazuuka Joe That is what the libertarians should argue on.
The left controls the academia, so use their tactics/vocabulary to win ground.
+Bazuuka Joe When you consented to your paycheque. If your job is voluntary (as capitalism claims) so are the taxes associated with it.
Maybe it's because my "ears are American" but when you say hair and hand, it sounds similar to me.
Ok what if after she cuts my hair , I notice that she did awful job to which i didn't consent to. Should i file a lawsuit then?
Doesn't putting something on a sliding scale mean it falls under the paradox of the heap?
And what about tacit consent? If you live in a country, you may not be competent, informed, or in some cases free, but they still give their tacit consent.
And doesn't it pose a moral problem when someone "can't" give consent? Like children or intoxicated people, how can anything be done to them? If a child said she doesn't want to go to school, but her parents make her, how is that ethical? And what if, it turns out, she has a good reason for not wanting to go to school (say the teachers beat the students, which is legal in the USA). And suppose the parents know this, but they don't care. This happens a lot in the USA, but it seems wrong for neglectful parents to be given the right to consent when the daughter wishes not to.
Yeah, eat that cookie.
so if a drunk man gets in his car and kills a few cats an a teenager on his way home should not be prosecuted cause "no valid desicion making abilities"?
I mean how is that different, i,e making sbdy dead due to your lack of valid making abilities, to a drunk woman that consents (the "car and a green light that in fact is red") to have sex with someone, thus making him a rapist (as far as her consent is not valid)?
This is such an overused argument I'm surprised that you wrote it on this platform as a valid response. In the case of rape, which can happen to and from any gender by the way, it would involve a competent person acting on an incompetent person. Perhaps we turn it around and suppose that the person who is incompetent at the time found a competent person and raped them. Although it has not always been the case, that person would still have to be held accountable under the law. It is completely different than a competent person taking advantage of incompetent person's inability to make calculated decisions to violate their personal autonomy.
Why someone, in a world with so many injustices, would take their time to defend rape, is a mystery to me. It would seem to be much more productive, beneficial, and just to spend your time concerning yourself with something else.
@@serenajuhuisuh so how much incompetence is incompetent? 2,3,4,5 drinks? I dont argue against the case that the person cant even keep his/her eyes open or cant spell a comprehensible word or anything like that. I am arguing against the case that sb is "off his mind" (i.e doing "crazy things, like putting his pants down while dancing on the bar), freed from moral restrains the case that ones inhibition and decision making (compared to what he/she would have done or not have done if sober, and shy and with low confidence) is affected by alcohol . The case that makes you regret for something you did while drunk. Regret over a sexual intercourse while drunk, very often is presented as "he took advance of her condition" and "rape", which imo is not (just regret, and sbdy not being like a parent to you), especially if i am drunk too
@@serenajuhuisuh not sure how overused is the argument; it is rather a question that popped naturally/logically in my mind. Maybe i am sick
I don't agree with those conditions of valid consent. If I am uninformed that is my problem. And so long as we are abiding by the first rule I should be capable of solving that problem. In your example the first person is fully aware that it is possible for the friend to lie about the contents of the box. It is their responsibility to evaluate the risk that comes with that choice. Anyone not capable of making that choice fails at the first rule.
All consent is under duress, this is the nature of consent. You allow permit behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable because not doing so would cost you something. You consent to a rental contract because not doing so would leave you homeless. You consent to the undesirable person coming to your party because not doing so would cost you social currency. There is good duress and bad duress. If inflicting the consequences of withholding consent would be moral in other circumstances then it is ok. It is ok for a rental agency to not give you a home as they are not obligated to share their property. Regardless the consent is valid in and of itself, the morality of the inducement is a separate matter. It is up to the decision maker to determine if the juice is worth the squeeze. Anyone not able to do so fails the first rule.
Tl:dr the first rule is the only one that is really necessary.
"Tl:dr the first rule is the only one that is really necessary"
So being informed isn't important for consent to be valid?
What if I, say, very cleverly hid the bomb inside 1 of the toys such that you wouldn't realise it without breaking the toy open? Would your consenting to hold the box still be valid if you had to go to extreme lengths to eliminate/evaluate all possible risk?
if you the property you think you own is on Earth land/water/etc that was stolen through colonization (noconsensual), you dont have the same rights as Native people who's land/water was stolen, or descendents.
Consent is a good tool to protect women, but it shouldn't be expected from people who know nothing of it. Some people think they have to go for the kiss instead of asking for it.
Then they are wrong.
@@xxmemestar69xx82 Wrong sure, but they don't know better. Killing animals is worse yet most people continue to pay for it
@@howtosaveabillion9362 if they don’t know better, they should be educated.
One thing I always found interesting is that a drunk girl apparently cannot consent but drunk drivers are held responsible. Why is one responsible for their actions when another isn't?
Not Squirrel I think there's a significant difference between how drunk one is in those cases. The point at which you're not able to give consent with regards to your body is way higher than two beers (the level beyond which you'd be drunk driving in most countries in Europe). I'd be interested in a philosophical analysis, though; maybe there is a difference between bodily consent and causing harm to others (due to the increased accident risk)?
Not Squirrel When you weren't drunk, you could have made the decision to not drive. You could have taken a ride share car to your location or asked a friend to drive you.
On a more practical (and somewhat messed up) note. Rape laws were originally made to protect fathers and husbands from having their daughters and wives raped. We've changed the intention to protect prepubescent girls, and then expanded those rights from there to teenage and adult women, prepubescent boys, and sometimes teenage and adult men. Given that a lot of things were tacked on later, they are also enforced that way. Adult women unfortunately find it pretty hard to go to the police and claim date rape, and then get an actual conviction.
Now, drunk driving is pretty straightforward. It was made with the intent to protect other drivers and pedestrians, and even the drunk driver to some extent. So the consent issue doesn't play much of a role with regard to how the law is made. It's harm reduction with respect to lives, where as rape laws are about bodily atonomy.
Not Squirrel
Consent and responsibility are different things. A drunk driver is responsible for causing harm. A drunk person is not responsible for others causing harm to them.
obvious_humor
A drunk person, if they are drunk of their own accord, is still responsible for their own actions though. And if a person, even a drunk one, agrees coherently to participate in an activity that will ultimately harm them, they are responsible for their involvement in that activity.
Lucas, if the drunk girl would peg a passed-out drunk guy, she would be in the wrong. Why do you ask?
"If they didn't consent freely"
See: taxation is theft
If you live in the land of the free, you can move to a place where taxation is non-existent.
Rūdolfs Mazurs >if you live in (insert meaningless platitude) you can move to (insert fictional location)
+SevenStringShredHead If a job is voluntary so are taxes. If you consent to a paycheque you consent to taxes.
Seven, I just assumed you are from USA, thus “land of the free”, whatever that means. As for “tax free zones” there are couple of those, and if you are wondering why people tend to not live in those, you might find out a lot of interesting things.
Rūdolfs Mazurs theft is theft regardless of where you live
While these are entertaining philosophical considerations (degrees of consent, validity of consent), for all practical purposes consent should be considered always valid, binary, and always equal to desire.
Being able to withdraw concent after giving it. Would be able to sue a tattoo artist for giving you a tattoo and regretting it after.
Imagine you give consent to having a tattoo. Just before the needle hits your skin, you freak out and withdraw your consent. Can the tattoo artist then continue to make the tattoo against your explicit will?
You're misunderstanding. Consent can only be withdrawn before the act that was consented to is complete. Stop before it starts, or before it finishes. But not once its complete.
Withdraw consent? What the hell? She sleeps with you the previous night, regrets it later tomorrow, and says she's been a victim of sexual assault because she now withdraws her consent. Are you mad? This barrage of bullocks is neither moral nor legal, and infringes on the rights of the consented party as well as making a mockery of the notion of consent. Consent cannot be withdrawn at whim. Consent is a binding personal or social contract that all involved parties must honor at the pain of indemnity or incarceration or even capital punishment.
Ozan Yarman I think I've overheared that you can withdraw consent. However I think that a girl that slept with you (after giving you consent) can withdraw that consent by saying that she doesn't want to sleep with you again.
Withdrawing consent after something happened however really leads to weird outcomes.
Withdrawing consent is normal. Even for buying a product you have a 30 day return policy. If a person was intoxicated or not in her normal state, of course she wouldn't see last night as valid consent, and she just won't want to hang out with you any more
nobody said you can withdraw consent after something that can't be undone is done. Stop playing the victim.
nothing in the video suggests that they were talking about _retroactively_ withdrawing consent.
i invite you to a party, then i dis-invite you. i have withdrawn consent and you shouldn't come. this is different from having you invited and deciding to accuse you of trespassing after the party.
but yeah, evil straw feminists are everywhere and out to get you..
Withdrawal of consent doesn't imply retroactively withdrawing consent. Breaking up with someone is withdrawing consent, but it is not implying that them sleeping with you before that is now against your consent. Perhaps retroactively revoking consent (e.g., by saying "I never consented willingly") might be an interesting topic for future video though.
There are many problems in this video.
Letting someone cut your hair isn't waiving your right, is exercising it.
You aren't acting against your desires to not let your favorite co-worker eat your cookies, you're acting on your greater desire to not be bothered by others.
I stopped watching. This person doesn't understand consent.
Seems like we have multiple, conflicting desires though. I like that the video addressed conflicting desires
What is consent? Yes.
If yall seriously need a video to understand this, we're all in trouble.
Its not a matter of understanding, it's an analytic and philosophic view on the topic.
brandon brisbane I still dont understand why we need it
Why do any philosophy then, we don't need this as much as we don't need aesthetics or metaphysics. And who says "we" need it, can't the discussion simply be for those who want it?
brandon brisbane I guess you're right in implying that interests are subjective, but I think this video just explains common sense and is overly simplistic. Do you want to help me understand why you "want" this video?
Common sense is a myth. What makes obvious sense to you won't to other people. To me, its obvious that a video on a philosophy channel was made to spark intellectual curiosity on a subject, but that wasn't as apparent to you. I "want" this video for the same reason I want a video on any conceptual topic, to think about its bounds and its properties. Just because you have a workable understanding of a topic, doesn't make it obvious and doesn't even mean you truly understand the topic either. That's why talking in depth about this or any topic is important.