Incompetence to Consent

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

Post Number:#16  Postby Jackowens » June 7th, 2010, 5:50 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/7/10 (#15):

"However, according to those like me, who consider certain beings to be incompetent to consent that means all interactions by a competent adult with that incompetent being are considered effectively non-consensual regardless of how apparently willing or desiring the incompetent being seems."


I see that and pretty much all of what follows as little more, but in slightly different words, than what you've already posted.

Where does that leave us? Apparently with the implication that I have a mistaken belief, that I'm guilty of a fallacy or contradiction when I try to make a distinction between feeding a hungry dog and, afterwards, force-feeding it more than it either wants or needs.

Which is it?

Please note that I am not talking about rape or humans; I'm talking about the ingestion of food by dogs. Per point #6 of our agreement on the "Debate Methodology - How to point out each other's errors", if you want to talk about competence to consent regarding a) sexual activity between b) humans (of whatever age), fine; I'll cooperatively explore that specific aspect of competence to consent with you separately; but let's not conflate that with competence to consent/dissent regarding c) the ingestion of food by dogs.

Agreed?

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#17  Postby Scott » June 7th, 2010, 10:29 pm

Jackowens wrote:Apparently with the implication that I have a mistaken belief, that I'm guilty of a fallacy or contradiction when I try to make a distinction between feeding a hungry dog and, afterwards, force-feeding it more than it either wants or needs.

Which is it?

I think you have a mistaken belief. I think you have made what I think you call an empirical error. When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively. This point does not change whether the incompetent being is a dog, a child or a severely mentally handicapped person who has been declared incompetent. For the same reason of incompetence to consent in each case, I believe you are making an empirical error if you either say sex between a 30-year-old man and a 12-year-old child is not always tantamount to rape or say a competent adult feeding a child/dog is not always tantamount to force-feeding, in that both those statement are wrong in my view because neither a 12-year-old child nor a dog are competent to consent. If you believed one of those statements to be true and the other to be false, then I believe you would be making a blatant contradiction.

Jackowens wrote:Please note that I am not talking about rape or humans; I'm talking about the ingestion of food by dogs. Per point #6 of our agreement on the "Debate Methodology - How to point out each other's errors", if you want to talk about competence to consent regarding a) sexual activity between b) humans (of whatever age), fine; I'll cooperatively explore that specific aspect of competence to consent with you separately; but let's not conflate that with competence to consent/dissent regarding c) the ingestion of food by dogs.

Agreed?

No, they are all examples of the same principle and that common principle--incompetence to consent--is the topic of this thread. Unless your argument is that dogs are competent to consent and children are not, then I will try to use the phrase 'incompetent beings' which includes dogs, children and any other incompetent person. What I am saying and the argument I am making is not unique to dogs but applies equally to all beings that are incompetent to consent.

It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.

Let me be clear, I think your desire to talk about each separately is symptomatic of a contradiction on your part. But if you want to talk about dogs specifically, then that's fine. I'll use the phrase 'incompetent beings' which includes dogs and you can use the specific term dog. There's no point in having a redundant secondary conversation in which I say the same exact things but with the phrase 'dogs' replaced by 'children.' I'll just use the phrase 'incompetent beings' to refer to both.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Post Number:#18  Postby Jackowens » June 8th, 2010, 4:36 am

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/7/10 (#17):

"I think you have a mistaken belief. I think you have made what I think you call an empirical error."


That's a start.

"When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively."


But that does not show an empirical error on my part. All you're doing is what you've been doing repeatedly: giving me your belief with nothing to support it in the sense of showing me that my disagreement involves me in a fallacy or contradiction. You're talking around me. Please give me a fallacy or contradiction on my part.

Permit me to try to condense in as few words as possible what I think is the central issue here:

Faced with a hungry dog, would you offer it food and let it eat?

I would. Yes.

"Let me be clear, I think your desire to talk about each separately is symptomatic of a contradiction on your part."


I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am

Post Number:#19  Postby Belinda » June 8th, 2010, 4:43 am

It's not that dogs and children are judgementally unalike, but it is that judgements about feeding and sexual activity are unalike. Even a tiny baby 'knows' when he want to be fed, and with good reason. Same with a dog. However,a little baby, a child of twelve and a dog are all at risk of over or underfeeding, which is a matter of degree. But sexual activity is regarded as all or nothing and not a matter of degree.Sex of any sort or degree with children is against the law because there is no sexual activity that is good for children.

The law in free countries is founded upon common morality which in its turn has a large input from religious ethics.

Religious ethics that are common to all the world religions are aimed at fairness when people with diverse needs have to get on together.The powerful (competent adults, the rich, the influential) have to be controlled so that they don't exploit the less powerful (children, most other adults, animals,drunks etc.)
But the powerful have to have a certain amount of freedom too in their own and society's interests.Rape is therefore a crime when the law deems that a powerful person has sexually exploited a less powerful person.It is possible that in the affluent west, quite soon, overfeeding a child will be a crime, as grossly overfeeding an animal is deemed to be animal cruelty.

Religious morality claims that everybody, all the time, demands unvarying treatment of the other as a 'thou'. Legality even in free countries is less stringent than religion and allows that some powerless beings are legally exploitable(e/g/ animals, competent adults, slaves), can be treated as 'it', and allows the powerful more power to exploit than does religious ethics.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#20  Postby pjkeeley » June 8th, 2010, 6:28 am

Are we to infer, Jackowens, that you believe that sex between a person and an animal can be considered consensual so long as the animal appears to consent?

If so, then do you approve of consensual bestiality? If you do not approve, then on what basis do you consider bestiality a legal wrong?
User avatar
pjkeeley
 
Posts: 694 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post Number:#21  Postby Wonder » June 8th, 2010, 7:28 am

"Competence".....noun of the verb "to compete".
Competence is observed among beings of homogeneous essence.
There is competence among men or among dogs but there is no competence between men and dogs or between lions and deer.
Based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of competence, all of your conclusions are false.
When we say "beings similar to men" we don't mean animals, but beings with reason. (possible to exist)
Therefore its futile to try to discuss something like this, based on the wrong assumptions.

As I said consent is a result of free will, which is denied to certain people, like children. So the crime of having sex with a child, (rape) is not based on "consent" but in the total absence of free will of the victim.
In which case the punishment exists beyond the opinion of the victim.
User avatar
Wonder
 
Posts: 80 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 19th, 2010, 7:05 am
Location: Greece

Post Number:#22  Postby Scott » June 8th, 2010, 2:43 pm

Wonder, I think you are confusing competence with competition.

***
Jackowens,

Scott wrote:When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively.
Jackowens wrote:But that does not show an empirical error on my part.

Do you disagree with that statement? I can't explain to you what error I think you are making to have a false belief unless I know which of the things I think are true you think are false.

Jackowens wrote:Permit me to try to condense in as few words as possible what I think is the central issue here:

Faced with a hungry dog, would you offer it food and let it eat?

I don't see how that question represents the central issue here, particularly since I feel I already answered it in post #6.

Nonetheless, if I was faced with a hungry incompetent being particularly one of which I was in custody, yes, I would of course feed the incompetent being. However, I would feel that my feeding the incompetent being is tantamount to force-feeding the incompetent being regardless of how willing, desiring or seemingly consenting the incompetent being was. That is precisely what I mean by incompetent to consent; any interaction between a competent being and an incompetent being is effectively non-consensual because any willingness or seeming consent on the part of the incompetent being is invalid.

Incidentally, the irony is that I and I think most people would usually hold a competent being responsible for not force-feeding an incompetent being food or medicine that the incompetent being needs, particularly if the competent being is in custody of the hungry/sick incompetent being, whereas we would generally not let a competent being force-feed another competent being and would not require a competent being to provide charity to another competent being such as offering free food to a starving competent being.

Scott wrote:Let me be clear, I think your desire to talk about each separately is symptomatic of a contradiction on your part.
Jackowens wrote:I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?

What did you not understand about my explanation in that post:

Scott wrote:It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.


***

Belinda wrote:It's not that dogs and children are judgementally unalike, but it is that judgements about feeding and sexual activity are unalike. Even a tiny baby 'knows' when he want to be fed, and with good reason. Same with a dog. However,a little baby, a child of twelve and a dog are all at risk of over or underfeeding, which is a matter of degree. But sexual activity is regarded as all or nothing and not a matter of degree.Sex of any sort or degree with children is against the law because there is no sexual activity that is good for children.

Feeding is different than sex but in a way that is an exception to the idea of incompetent to consent. Feeding is different than sex in the sense that force-feeding (i.e. non-consensual feeding) is sometimes acceptable to most people and is sometimes legal and even compelled in certain circumstances in most legal systems, whereas rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) is never acceptable to most people and always illegal in all circumstances in almost all legal systems.

You say there is no sexual activity that is good for children. Maybe that's true. But the point I am making in this thread is that--according to my view and most people's view--any interaction between adults and children is effectively non-consensual because the children are incompetent to consent. Anyone who agrees that children are incompetent to consent would agree that any sex between a competent adult and a child is effectively rape. The question of whether rape or force-feeding is always harmful to an incompetent being in this case a child is actually beyond the scope of the idea of incompetent to consent, especially in the sense that children are in most people eye's not the only type incompetent beings but also horny animals and some horny mental ill patients and some horny severely mentally disabled persons. Nonetheless, I think most people feel like me: Rape is always intolerable, force-feeding is sometimes acceptable and--particularly in the case of a custodial party--sometimes worth compelling (e.g. making it illegal namely as a form of abuse, namely neglect, for a custodial adult to not force-feed the child/pet/severely-mentally-disabled-adult food or medicine that it needs). You aptly pointed that last part out when you mentioned underfeeding a pet being animal cruelty or overfeeding a child being potentially being abuse; all the result of the fact that children/animals are considered incompetent and thus irresponsible leaving others namely a competent custodial adult to be responsible for the incompetent ones.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Post Number:#23  Postby Jackowens » June 8th, 2010, 4:44 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/8/10 (#22):

Scott wrote: When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively.

"Do you disagree with that statement?"


Yes.

"Nonetheless, if I was faced with a hungry incompetent being particularly one of which I was in custody, yes, I would of course feed the incompetent being."


And after you fed the hungry dog and it refused to eat any more, would you tie it down, pry open its jaws, put food in its mouth and massage its throat to force it to swallow?

For my part, my answer is no; I wouldn't.

And you?

Jackowens wrote: I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?

Scott wrote: It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.

"What did you not understand about my explanation in that..."


A contradiction occurs when one affirms and denies the same thing, and when I say "same thing" I mean something quite precisely identified.

What have I both affirmed and denied?

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am

Post Number:#24  Postby Scott » June 8th, 2010, 7:18 pm

Scott wrote:When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively.
Scott wrote:Do you disagree with that statement?
Jackowens wrote:Yes.

I think you are making an empirical error. And you presumably think the same about me. I agree with the above statement; you don't. Thus anything you or I said premised on the truth or falsehood of the above statement may lead to disagreements whose source is our disagreement over the above statement. So let's discuss that statement with which I agree and you do not: "When a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively." Let's also note that it is actually just a more specific proposition logically following from the more general proposition that is the topic of this thread and with which I equally agree but with which you logically must also disagree: "When a competent being does something with or to an incompetent being it is non-consensual regardless of how desiring, seemingly willing or non-resisting the incompetent being is."

I essentially feel it is true by definition. What does it mean to say a being is incompetent to consent if it does not mean that any seeming willingness or consent offered by the incompetent being is invalid?

I also wish to consider an example of that statement. I--and I believe the vast majority of people--believe that a 12-year-old human child is incompetent to consent. Do you agree that a 12-year-old child is incompetent to consent? If so, then let's say a horny 12-year-old girl asks an average 30-year-old man to have sex with her. The man asks the girl if she consents, and the girl even specifically says, "I consent." She resists in no overt way. Do you consider that to be consensual sex or rape? I believe it logically follows that it is rape from the two premises (1) 'a 12-year-old child is incompetent to consent' and (2) 'when a competent adult has sex with or gives food to an incompetent being it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) or force-feeding (non-consensual ingesting) respectively regardless of how desiring or seemingly willing the incompetent being is for the sex or food respectively.' I know you have said you disagree with at least one of those premises, so from your view that argument is unsound; and you think I have made an empirical error in my belief that those premises are true. I think both those premises are true and I think you have made what you call an empirical error since you believe at least one of the premises is false.

Scott wrote:Nonetheless, if I was faced with a hungry incompetent being particularly one of which I was in custody, yes, I would of course feed the incompetent being.
Jackowens wrote:And after you fed the hungry dog and it refused to eat any more, would you tie it down, pry open its jaws, put food in its mouth and massage its throat to force it to swallow?

I would force-feed the incompetent being insofar as I thought force-feeding it was in its bests interests and worth my effort, particularly in cases where the incompetent being would needlessly die or come under grave suffering if I do not force-feed it a certain substance.

Please remember, in my view, based on the premise mentioned early and the premise in either case it would be force-feeding (i.e. non-consensual feeding) in my view whether the incompetent being ate the food itself by me just putting the food in front of the incompetent being OR I used overt physical force or the threat of violence to get a physically resisting incompetent being to eat the substance. Note the difference between that and how I consider interactions with the average competent adult. If a normal adult gestures for a certain consumable substance and I set it front of him obviously offering him to eat it and he chooses to eat it, I would consider that consensual because the average adult is competent to consent.

Jackowens wrote:I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?
Scott wrote:What did you not understand about my explanation...

It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.
Jackowens wrote:A contradiction occurs when one affirms and denies the same thing, and when I say "same thing" I mean something quite precisely identified.

Right. I think these two sentences are contradictory.

1) Activity A is B because one participant in the activity is C.
2) Activity D is not B; one participant in the activity is C.

The first implies the premise, if one participant in the activity is C, then the activity is B, via the use of the word because. But the second illogically violates that premise. Logically both can't be true; at the very least one needs an added condition to avoid the illogical contradiction.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Post Number:#25  Postby Jackowens » June 9th, 2010, 6:25 am

Dear Scott:

In reply to your post of 6/8/10 (#24):

"I would force-feed the incompetent being insofar as I thought force-feeding it was in its bests interests and worth my effort, particularly in cases where the incompetent being would needlessly die or come under grave suffering if I do not force-feed it a certain substance."


Yes, I would too. But you seem to be making the same distinction I am between two actions on your and my parts. In other words ostensibly we're in agreement.

The actions are:

A. Feeding a hungry dog, and

B. Feeding (force-feeding) a dog that has eaten all that it wants --and needs-- and struggles to avoid the ingestion of more food.

Note that the difference is not adduced by reasoning but as a matter of simple observation, of seeing the dog turn to vs its turning away.

Are we in agreement that those are two distinguishable actions and that if it were not a case of, as you put it, its being in the dog's bests interests and worth your effort, particularly in cases where the incompetent being would needlessly die or come under grave suffering if you did not force-feed it a certain substance, you, as I, would refrain from doing it?"

"Please remember, in my view..."


In this controversy I'm taking our views not as something satisfying or pleasing to us but rather as your belief in opposition to my belief and that, being in opposition, there must be an error in one of them . They can't both be true. And I'm saying that you have an error to discard in your belief. We'll see.

Jackowens wrote: A contradiction occurs when one affirms and denies the same thing, and when I say "same thing" I mean something quite precisely identified.

"Right. I think these two sentences are contradictory.

1) Activity A is B because one participant in the activity is C.

2) Activity D is not B; one participant in the activity is C."


Please point out my two specific statements (in my own words), one wherein I affirm X and the other wherein I deny it.

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am

Post Number:#26  Postby Belinda » June 9th, 2010, 7:10 am

There is a moral difference of degree between force feeding an animal ( as is most horrifically done with foie gras geese) and over-feeding an animal or child.The methods are different; force feeding is frightening and painful but over feeding although not painful leads to disease and death as certainly as does force-feeding.

Rape is a statutory category. In our more enlightened societies rape is applied to many, but not all, cases where a less powerful being is sexually forced or exploited by a more powerful being.

Competence is also a legal category, and has only recently been negatively applied to drunk women as regards rape.
My point is that common human sympathy should go further than the law, and put the onus upon the more powerful agent to protect the weaker in every case.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13760 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#27  Postby Scott » June 9th, 2010, 4:04 pm

Jackowens wrote:A. Feeding a hungry dog, and

B. Feeding (force-feeding) a dog that has eaten all that it wants --and needs-- and struggles to avoid the ingestion of more food.

Assuming a dog is incompetent to consent which I believe, both A and B are non-consensual feeding (a.k.a. force-feeding).

How I would feel and how I think the vast majority people would about a specific instance of feeding an incompetent being in the form of A or B would of course not be based on whether or not the feeding was consensual since the feeding in both cases is inherently non-consensual. It would instead depend mainly on the intention and beliefs of the competent being feeding the incompetent being and on the healthiness of what was being non-consensually fed (a.k.a. force-fed) to the incompetent being. If the incompetent being was intentionally being overfed food to an unhealthy degree, perhaps causing stomach pains, causing puking or eventually making the incompetent being suffer from morbid obesity, then that would be something I and most of us would oppose and probably want criminalize. In contrast, if the substance being fed to the incompetent being was something healthy and/or reasonably expected by the feeder to be good for the incompetent being, then most of us would not have a problem with that.

Sometimes an empty bowl of cereal is left out for a little bit, but there is still some milk residue on the bottom. Our cat will usually try to drink it. If she does lick it up, she will throw up later. I use my superior strength to push the cat away from the bowl, sometimes even picking her up as she tries to resist being moved. I also hear of some pet owners who pry open the mouth of their resisting pet and put in a vitamin or flea-repelling medication, then use their strength to hold the pet's mouth closed until the pet resistingly and unhappily swallows the vitamin or flea-repelling medication. I also hear about pet owners who put too much food down for their pet and the pet becomes obese. I have also heard of pet-owners who feed their pet beer; and I'm sure there have been pets just like there have been children who have died or become terribly ill from the consumption of alcohol or some other harmful food item that they ate without resistance simply because the owner/parent put the consumable item in front of the incompetent being.

Jackowens wrote:Are we in agreement that those are two distinguishable actions and that if it were not a case of, as you put it, its being in the dog's bests interests and worth your effort, particularly in cases where the incompetent being would needlessly die or come under grave suffering if you did not force-feed it a certain substance, you, as I, would refrain from doing it?"

A and B are different actions, yes. Shooting someone to death and stabbing someone to death are different actions. Nonetheless, when done to an incompetent being, A and B are both force-feeding (a.k.a. non-consensual feeding). As for your question, I would refrain from feeding an incompetent being in my custody--remember all feeding of an incompetent being is non-consensual feeding--something that would overall hurt him or overall make him unhappy; in contrast I may feed the incompetent being in my custody something that is healthy for him. Unlike with a competent being who is capable of consent who I would thus not feed if he does not consent to being fed and who I may feed or overfeed even something unhealthy like large quantities of alcohol or heart-attack-inducing fast food, the incompetent being is incompetent to consent.

Scott wrote:Let me be clear, I think your desire to talk about each separately is symptomatic of a contradiction on your part.
Jackowens wrote:I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?
Scott wrote:What did you not understand about my explanation...

It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.
Jackowens wrote:A contradiction occurs when one affirms and denies the same thing, and when I say "same thing" I mean something quite precisely identified.
Scott wrote:Right. I think these two sentences are contradictory.

1) Activity A is B because one participant in the activity is C.
2) Activity D is not B; one participant in the activity is C.

The first implies the premise, if one participant in the activity is C, then the activity is B, via the use of the word because. But the second illogically violates that premise. Logically both can't be true; at the very least one needs an added condition to avoid the illogical contradiction.
Jackowens wrote:Please point out my two specific statements (in my own words), one wherein I affirm X and the other wherein I deny it.

I'm not sure what your asking me to show you. You asked me to talk specifically about feeding/force-feeding and only talk about consensual-sex/rape in a a potential second, separate conversation. I told you that I think that desire is symptomatic of a contradiction. If I say, "Activity A and activity D are both B because one participant in each activity is C." and you say, 'Please only talk about activity D,' then the most plausible cause (i.e. what that seems to be a symptom of) is that you think Activity D is not B while activity A is B.

***

Jackowens, you did not answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Please answer them. I'll quote the actual questions in order here, but please re-read the post in which they originally appeared to get them in context:

Scott wrote:What does it mean to say a being is incompetent to consent if it does not mean that any seeming willingness or consent offered by the incompetent being is invalid?
Scott wrote:Do you agree that a 12-year-old child is incompetent to consent?
Scott wrote:Do you consider that to be consensual sex or rape?


***

Belinda wrote:There is a moral difference of degree between force feeding an animal ( as is most horrifically done with foie gras geese) and over-feeding an animal or child.The methods are different; force feeding is frightening and painful but over feeding although not painful leads to disease and death as certainly as does force-feeding.

I don't follow you. Firstly, regardless of whether you physically retain, pry open the mouth of and stuff food into the mouth of an incompetent being, put use the threat of additional violence to get the incompetent being to consume some substance (e.g. "eat it or I'll spank you," or "eat or I'll shoot you with this gun"), or simply put the food in front of the incompetent being who desiringly approaches the food and eats the food, it is non-consensual because the incompetent being is incompetent to consent. Whether or not non-consensual feeding (a.k.a. force-feeding) of an incompetent is harmful, is something I or the vast majority of people want criminalized or is something you would call more or less "immoral" or "moral good"--whatever that means--often depends I think on whether the one feeding the incompetent being genuinely believes it is good for the incompetent being and whether it is actually good for the incompetent being. For instance, if the consumable item being given to the incompetent being--which is inherently non-consensual--is a large quantity of vodka, then most people would think it is harmful, want it to be criminalized, and maybe think it is whatever you mean by 'immoral' to some varying degree. In contrast, if the consumable item is some food or medicine that the incompetent being needs to avoid death or grave suffering or unhealthiness, then most people would be fine with letting someone non-consensually feed the incompetent being.

I force-feed my 3-month old son iron supplements that he doesn't like that the pediatrician recommended. He turns his head away, but I am stronger than him and hold his head in place and pour the drops into his mouth where gravity keeps it until he unhappily swallows it.

Belinda wrote:My point is that common human sympathy should go further than the law, and put the onus upon the more powerful agent to protect the weaker in every case.

I agree with that sentiment. For example, it is legal for me to walk past a homeless starving family with a look of hateful disgust in my eyes. I want it to be legal for me to be selfish, mean-hearted person in that way. But common human sympathy would be what leads me to choose without being compelled by the law to behave differently.

To the topic at hand, common human decency may make it so I choose not to feed an incompetent being--which is inherently non-consensual--large quantities of low calorie, poor tasting vegetables that the incompetent being doesn't seem to want even if it wouldn't be illegal in the same way it isn't illegal for me to forcefully make my 3-month old son consume those iron drops.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4197 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Post Number:#28  Postby Jackowens » June 9th, 2010, 7:52 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/9/10 (#27):

Jackowens wrote: A. Feeding a hungry dog, and

B. Feeding (force-feeding) a dog that has eaten all that it wants --and needs-- and struggles to avoid the ingestion of more food.

"Assuming a dog is incompetent to consent which I believe, both A and B are non-consensual feeding (a.k.a. force-feeding)."


But no force is used in A.

If I claim that A does not involve force-feeding because of that, what would my error be? I mean that if I'm not involved in a perceptual error, and I believe that any observer can see the difference in terms of force not-used/used between what is occurring in A vs B, then I must be involved in a fallacy or contradiction in claiming that in the case of A force-feeding is not involved.

What is it.

Beyond that, we're running into confusion regarding the use of the concept of competence/incompetence applied to dogs.

See below.

Jackowens wrote: Please point out my two specific statements (in my own words), one wherein I affirm X and the other wherein I deny it.

"I'm not sure what your asking me to show you."


It's right there. Give me the two statements showing that I'm affirming and denying the same thing. How can I make it clearer? "X" is whatever the topic of the contradiction on my part that you claim to see. Or is your puzzlement regarding the definition of a contradiction?

"You asked me to talk specifically about feeding/force-feeding and only talk about consensual-sex/rape in a a potential second, separate conversation."


I don't know what "only" means in that sentence.

"I told you that I think that desire is symptomatic of a contradiction. If I say, "Activity A and activity D are both B because one participant in each activity is C." and you say, 'Please only talk about activity D,' then the most plausible cause (i.e. what that seems to be a symptom of) is that you think Activity D is not B while activity A is B."


I find that confusing.

Let me see if I understand you.

Activity A involves a healthy, normal dog's ingesting food with no force used.

Activity D involves a healthy, normal dog's ingesting food by means of force when that dog does not want or need that food.

B is the simple ingesting of food with or without force.

C is your claim that the dog is incompetent to decide if it is hungry or not.

I am then supposed to say that I only want to talk about D meaning that I don't want to talk about A, B or C.

Do I have that right so far?

"Scott wrote: What does it mean to say a being is incompetent to consent if it does not mean that any seeming willingness or consent offered by the incompetent being is invalid?"


I don't think I can answer that as given because of the confusion stemming from the ambiguity of your use of the word "incompetent". It's possible for a human to be competent or incompetent in the legalistic sense in which the word is commonly used, but that distinction cannot possibly be made in the case of a dog. A dog, in contrast to a human, can never be competent in the sense that we use the term as applied to humans; and you're blurring that distinction between humans and dogs. To avoid that confusion is why I wanted to divide our discussion into two parts: discussing humans in contrast to dogs and the differing standards of judgement we use in the case of each.

The bottom line is that we judge a normal, healthy dog to be competent --if you want to use that word-- to judge whether it is hungry or not. That once it has satisfied its hunger it is competent to decide that it has satisfied its hunger.

"Do you agree that a 12-year-old child is incompetent to consent?"


In some things yes and in some no. For instance I see no reason that the child wouldn't be competent to decide whether it wanted apple pie or blueberry pie for dessert. I don't see it as competent to decide if it wants to continue going to school or not.

"Do you consider that to be consensual sex or rape?"


I don't understand what "that" is.

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am

Post Number:#29  Postby Abacab » June 9th, 2010, 9:16 pm

I have been following this thread and would suggest, if Scott deem`s animals and some humans incompetent to consent to eating food, why then do we bother [as Scott suggest`s] "force" feeding babies? It makes little sense to suggest the incompetent can`t consent, someone comotosed can`t consent, but I am certain when they recover from their coma and wake up they will thank those who decided to maintain their life by means of intravenously feeding them and maintaining their fluids, the question should be when do we recognise when a person who can`t consent might not want to consent? when is enough, enough? depending on the scenerario. It is not a black and white answer, but more a shade of grey which takes more than a quickfire unthoughtout yes or no for the experts to decide.
Abacab
Banned
 
Posts: 204 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 20th, 2010, 11:21 am

Post Number:#30  Postby Jackowens » June 10th, 2010, 12:51 am

Dear Abacab,

In reply to your post of 6/9/10 (#9):

Since this thread holds some interest for you, let me try this out for your take on it:

Force-feeding, as the term itself indicates, necessarily involves force. That distinction is borne out by any dictionary.

Feeding a normal, healthy dog does not require the use of force; hence feeding it until is is sated cannot be called a case of force-feeding. Competence/incompetence has nothing to do with it. Speaking of humans, to which the concept is usually applied, both the competent and incompetent can be force-fed.

1. Is my error one of sensory perception (sight)?

2. Is my error one of reasoning?

Regards,

Jack
Jackowens
 
Posts: 60 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 4:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST