Incompetence to Consent

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

Post Number:#31  Postby pjkeeley » June 10th, 2010, 4:10 am

I have been following this discussion also. It was originally about consent, not force-feeding. It was argued (by Scott) that since dogs are incapable of consent, to feed a dog should be considered force-feeding, whether the dogs are physically forced to eat or not. That is an unusual definition of the term (and one which I personally do not think is useful). The current argument is thus over the correct definition of force-feeding, which misses the point entirely. The ability or inability of dogs to consent is the point of the discussion. Whether we call it force-feeding or simply feeding a dog, the important question is whether or not dogs are capable of consenting to activity with humans, including being fed.

I argue that, regardless of whether they appear to consent to anything or not, dogs are incapable of validly consenting. They are, in the same way as children or the severely handicapped, incompetent to consent for legal and moral purposes. Does this mean that we are obliged to deprive them of food? Of course not. Those who are responsible for their care undertake certain activities that are technically non-consensual, but that are necessary for their continued wellbeing. There is nothing wrong with this. By contrast, activities which are non-consensual and which are not carried out for the care of the incompetent and which may even harm the interests of the incompetent, such as rape, are legally and morally wrong.

This is my position on consent which I believe Scott shares. It successfully explains why bestiality and paedophilia are legally and morally wrong but why, for example, homosexuality isn't. The onus is on Jackowens to either present an alternative or refute this position. I have already requested an explanation on his position regarding consent earlier in thread but I received no reply. It seems Jackowens is more concerned with bogging down every discussion with technicalities and semantics than with having a meaningful discussion on the subject.
User avatar
pjkeeley
 
Posts: 694 (View: All / In topic)

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



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#32  Postby Belinda » June 10th, 2010, 6:15 am

Scott wrote
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.


The difference between force feeding as commonly understood, is a difference of degree but not a difference of kind.There are certain criteria such as inflicting pain, fear,alternatives,
The dog who is fed an adequate diet, and forced to swallow occasional medication is forced to the degree that he is incompetent to judge for himself how to eat and self medicate as a domestic animal in artificial living conditions that he shares with humans.

The case of the baby or young child is similar to that of the incompetent dog. The baby or young child is incompetent to self diet or self medicate and the caring competent adult has to make these decisions for him.The signs of hunger in a child or in a dog are useful criteria but are not the only criteria; some children and some dogs have morbid appetites.

There is controversy about the age at which the child should be deemed competent to make certain decisions regarding sex, self medication, drugs such as alcohol,risk of self destruction as cannon fodder,education etc.
The domestic dog is like a permanent child as the dog never reaches an age at which he can safely negociate the concrete jungle.

Cruelty to children, dogs, and other dependent beings is also controversial and, like competence to consent,cruelty is a normative judgement.There are borderline cases.The borderline was apparent for instance after force feeding of Suffragettes was suddenly halted. The force feeding of Sufragettes was halted after public consciousness was suddenly raised when publicity about methods was broadcast, but until then officialdom thought that force feeding of troublesome women who broke the law was okay.

Usually we assess normative competence according to current knowledge about health, maturation and the state of society.The assessment is always pro tem although the law as we know usually takes time to catch up on scientific knowledge.

The top line, as Scott and I agree, is common human sympathy which trumps the law.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#33  Postby Abacab » June 10th, 2010, 8:58 am

Jack Owens wrote
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.


Which is why my prior posted response was pointing out Scott`s error in calling it forced and what he means by "Force" ? Scott`s definition would equally mean we *force* newborns to drink their mothers milk. Which is absurd. Feeding a dog that is hungry is not force feeding it. Belinda raised the point about adults administering medications for babies and dogs as both are clearly not competent to be able understand to consent. Worming a dog takes the owner to put the pils in the dogs diet or administer them orally. I wouldn`t call that morally reprehensible, and have no idea why it is being argued?

PJKeeley wrote
I argue that, regardless of whether they appear to consent to anything or not, dogs are incapable of validly consenting. They are, in the same way as children or the severely handicapped, incompetent to consent for legal and moral purposes. Does this mean that we are obliged to deprive them of food? Of course not. Those who are responsible for their care undertake certain activities that are technically non-consensual, but that are necessary for their continued wellbeing. There is nothing wrong with this. By contrast, activities which are non-consensual and which are not carried out for the care of the incompetent and which may even harm the interests of the incompetent, such as rape, are legally and morally wrong.


Wholeheartedly agreed there are of course contrasts the vulnerable ought to be subject to their human rights and societie`s benevolence and protection`s.
Abacab
Banned
 
Posts: 204 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#34  Postby Jackowens » June 11th, 2010, 5:41 am

Dear Scott,

With further rumination on this matter it has struck me that your objections are artificial and we need to return to a practical approach to the controversy.

I propose that we discard the idea of competence of consent and simply feed the dog what it want/needs as is customarily done. If no harm results from that usual practice, why complicate the matter by factitiously introducing problems of lack of competency and forced-feeding which, if the dog is normal and healthy, don't exist?

Make sense?

Regards,

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

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

Post Number:#35  Postby pjkeeley » June 11th, 2010, 6:49 am

Jackowens wrote:I propose that we discard the idea of competence of consent and simply feed the dog what it want/needs as is customarily done. If no harm results from that usual practice, why complicate the matter by factitiously introducing problems of lack of competency and forced-feeding which, if the dog is normal and healthy, don't exist?

Of course. But this thread isn't solely about feeding dogs. Feeding dogs is a relatively uncontroversial issue. This thread is about consent, and though we can quite easily do away with consent in the case of feeding dogs, we cannot do so for more controversial issues, such as bestiality.

Apparently, you believe that dogs can consent to sex with humans. But we have yet to hear a more detailed version of your view, and you continue to ignore everything I put to you, which simply confirms my suspicion that you aren't interested in a meaningful discussion on this.
User avatar
pjkeeley
 
Posts: 694 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#36  Postby Scott » June 12th, 2010, 6:24 pm

I think post #31 by Pjkeeley is very much on point.

***

Regarding the specific term force-feeding. I think Jackowens and I may have both been mutually committing a fallacy of equivocation. We were using the same term to mean two different things.

For anyone reading any of my previous posts in this thread, please note that when I wrote 'force-feeding' I was defining it as 'non-consensual feeding.' In other words, as a matter of definition, I was using the term force-feeding in relation to feeding as the term rape is to sex. Jackowens seems to use the term differently. To help avoid any further fallacies of equivocation, I will no longer use the term force-feeding in this thread and use the more clear, unequivocal phrase non-consensual feeding.

Where a type of so-called 'force' or bondage is consensually used either in the case of feeding, sex or some other activity between competent adults, then I of course would not call it rape (i.e. 'non-consensual sex') or 'non-consensual feeding,' and would usually not want it to be criminalized, but my previous terminology may not have been as clear in that regard and probably in other regards.

***

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.
Scott wrote:Assuming a dog is incompetent to consent which I believe, both A and B are non-consensual feeding
Jackowens wrote: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.

The fallacy was a fallacy of equivocation. Regardless, both A and B are non-consensual because the dog is incompetent to consent.

I'm not sure what precisely you mean by 'force,' but if you don't believe 'force' is present in A then the presence or absence of so-called 'force' does not necessary entail consensuality or non-consensuality.

Jackowens wrote:A dog, in contrast to a human, can never be competent...

I agree. I think all dogs are incompetent to consent.

Jackowens wrote: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.

No we don't. I and the vast majority of people do not think either a 10-year-old child, a dog, or a severely mentally disabled person is competent to consent. If an adult feeds an incompetent being, it is non-consensual feeding. In cases where it is in the best interests of the incompetent being, I and the vast majority of people have no problem with a competent being feeding the incompetent being without consent, particularly if the competent being is in custody of the non-competent being. This is illustrated by an example I gave in post #27: "I [non-consensually 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."

Jackowens wrote: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.

I think that is incoherent. It's incoherent to say a being is competent to consent to do only what its caretaker have consented for on its behalf. A child is either competent to consent or not. I and most people believe that a child is not competent to consent to eating or drinking. Therefore, a parent or other competent adult in custody of the child can make the child eat green beans or disallow the child from eating green beans or corn or apple pie or blueberry pie; in either case the child has not consented to eating the vegetable or pie. You are confusing the possibility that the parent may choose to let menial differences be determined by the child's apparent preference for the child actually being competent to consent. The child is not competent to consent, whatever the parent feeds it is therefore non-consensually fed to the child, and the parent not the child is therefore responsible. For example, a parent may use the dog/child's own preferences to decide what toy to get the dog/child as a gift, but the child is not competent to consent to receiving the gift and not responsible for the choice. If the parent gave the child--who is incompetent--a real gun or sharp knife or a bottle of vodka or some bleach, it would be equally non-consensual because the child is incompetent to consent. The difference between apple pie and blueberry pie or giving a dog a 10oz can of food or 12oz can is moot or minor, so the parent may try to go based off the child's preferences but--assuming the child is incompetent to consent--really the choice is just as much the parent's responsibility as it would be if the choice was over whether or not the kid can have a sharp knife or bottle of poison. Because a child is incompetent to consent, a parent or other caretaker can refuse to let the child eat either, let the child eat both, make the child eat both or let the child eat one specific type but not the other. Anything the competent adult feeds the child or the competent adult lets the child eat is considered non-consensual. If this non-consensual activity is not believed to be overall harmful to the child, it's generally fine. If this non-consensual activity is harmful for the child, the competent adult and/or guardian will be held responsible by common social values and/or the law.

Consider, a child who is extremely allergic to blueberry pie but not apple pie is offered the choice by a competent adult, namely the person in custody of the child, and the child chooses blueberry. It's not consensual, and the competent pie-serving adult would be held responsible in a way that the pie-serving adult would not if an allergic competent adult had consented to taking and eating the pie or doing something else that puts himself at risk.

Scott wrote: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:[...]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?
Jackowens wrote:I don't understand what "that" is.

I'm not sure how I can make the question any clearer or simpler. :?

Jackowens wrote:I propose that we discard the idea of competence of consent...

No. The topic of this thread is competence to consent.

Jackowens wrote:I propose that we[...] simply feed the dog what it want/needs as is customarily done.

Yes, you are agreeing with me about that. Among other times in this thread, I wrote that same point in post #24: "I would [non-consensually feed] the incompetent being insofar as I thought [non-consensually 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 [non-consensually feed] it a certain substance." I also expressed the same idea in post #22: "I think most people feel like me: Rape is always intolerable, [non-consensually 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 [non-consensually feed] the child/pet/severely-mentally-disabled-adult food or medicine that it needs). [Belinda] aptly pointed that last part out when [she] 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."

In short, I think the vast majority of people agree with me about the following: I do NOT want it to always be illegal for competent adults to feed incompetent beings even though any such feeding is inherently non-consensual. Sometimes I expect or even want it to be legally required for a competent adult, namely one in custody of the incompetent being, to feed the incompetent being even though such feeding is always non-consensual and sometimes even when such feeding requires physically fighting, restraining or violently threatening the incompetent being. Unlike with feeding or giving a consumable substance to a competent adult, whether or not I frown upon feeding an incompetent being or want such feeding to be illegal depends on whether or not the inherently non-consensual feeding is good for the incompetent being or harmful and whether or not the one administering the feeding reasonably believed it was good for or bad for the incompetent being. In contrast, whether or not I want it to be legal to feed or giving a consumable substance to a competent adult depends on whether it is consensual because, unlike incompetent beings, competent adults can validly consent; thus even though something may be unhealthy, harmful or risky to do or consume, a competent adult can consent to it and be held responsible for himself. To illustrate, I wouldn't want a restaurant owner selling unhealthy food and alcohol to be held responsible if one of his customers died from a heart attack or alcohol-related ailment caused from that competent adult's choice to consensually eat the unhealthy food and alcohol; but if a parent/guardian overfed an underage child who then died from an obesity-related ailment or gave the child large quantities of unhealthy alcohol, I would want the parent/guardian held responsible not only because it is inherently non-consensual but also because it is not good for the incompetent being.
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: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#37  Postby Jackowens » June 12th, 2010, 8:21 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/12/10 (#36):

"Assuming a dog is incompetent to consent which I believe,..."


Is a dog incompetent to decide? For instance, we can assume that a person putting a plate of food in front of a hungry dog has consented in his own mind to feed it. It is then up to the dog's decision, rather than consent, as to whether it wants to eat it or not.

Is the dog competent to make that decision?

Regards,

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

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

Post Number:#38  Postby Scott » June 12th, 2010, 10:31 pm

Jackowens, you still haven't answered my question which I asked in post #24 and quoted in post #27 and #36:

Scott in post #24 wrote:[...]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?


***
Jackowens wrote:Is the dog competent to make that decision?

No. A dog is not competent to consent. Generally, a dog is even less mentally competent than a child. And it's already been commonly agreed by society that children and especially animals are not competent to consent.

The average human adult is competent. If you set a bowl of some consumable substance in front of a competent human adult, the adult can validly consent to eating and voluntarily choose to eat the contents of the bowl. It generally doesn't matter what was in the bowl if the competent adult consented to eating it. If the bowl was filled with several shots of vodka, or with raw, undercooked meat, then that's the competent adult's choice. If the competent adult is a morbidly obese man who will die much sooner if he continues eating fatty foods and the bowl is filled with a large pile of thousands of caloroies of gross, fatty hotdogs and he scarfs it down and has a heart attack a few days later, that's his choice.

In contrast, if a competent adult gives a bowl of food to a child or dog, the child or dog is not competent to consent to eating it. This is why even if a child wants several shots of vodka most people would not do it and it would probably be illegal to do it. This is even more true of a dog, and why you could be charged with animal cruelty if you gave a dog lots of alcohol or some other harmful substance even if all you did was set the substance offeringly in front of the dog.

***

For any activity between two parties in which at least one is a competent adult, it can be broken down at least like this:

    A: It can be consensually done between two competent adults, and be harmful for one (or both) of the particpants.

    B: It can be consensually done between two competent adults, and not be harmful to either of the particpants.

    C: It can be done with another competent adult without the other adult's consent and be harmful to that other adult.

    D: It can be done with another competent adult without the other adult's consent and not be harmful to that other adult.

    E: It can be non-consensually done with an incompetent being and be harmful to that incompetent being.

    F: It can be non-consensually done with an incompetent being and not be harmful to that incompetent being.


Please note, by definition, it cannot be conesnsually done with a being that is incompetent to consent.

An example of harmful activity, might be the drinking of large quantities of alcohol, overeating to the point of morbid obesity, or sport fighting (e.g. boxing, UFC). An example of a non-harmful activity might be putting a food tube into the arm of an aneroxic or someone on a hunger strike or giving a person a relatively safe surgery to remove cancer.

***

I believe it is almost unanimously agreed in the developed world that children, severely mentally handicapped people and severely mentally ill people are incompetent to consent. (Though, as addressed in the first post, there will always be disagreement about where to draw the line or what to do with persons falling near the inexact line.) Animals are generally even more incompetent to consent than human children, severely mentally handicapped people and severely mentally ill people.

In the case of humans, I think there is almost unanimous disapproval and criminalization of C and E at least where the harm believed to be done is significant. For those who want there to be a nanny-state, they may want to criminalize many if not most or all instances of A. For those like me who support freedom, we want almost all if not all instances of both A and B to be legal, and almost all instances of C and D to be illegal. In the case of humans, I think most people disapprove of E and generally want it to be illegal at least where the harm is significant but at least tolerate almost all insances of F and support many instances of F.

In the case of animals, everyone agrees they are generally even less competent to consent than children and retarded or mentally ill humans. But many people don't value animal life much and don't sympathize with animal pain. So there may not be any point in differentiating between E and F in certain contexts for animals. For instance, sport hunting is often legalized and celebrated. Painful, dangerous animal testing is often allowed. Factory farming animals and putting chickens through the excruceating pain of de-beaking is often allowed. Slaughtering animals, even ones who have and take the chance to try to run away but get caught and killed, is usually legal. However, many places at least provide some protections to animals, and extreme cases of abuse or victimization are still criminal particularly in cases where public opinion holds there is not much utility in the particular type of abuse or victimization. Regardless, that's beyond the scope of this thread since the reason people allow animal victimization and certain types of interactions with animals that they wouldn't allow with other humans has little to do with consent and the fact that animals are incompetent to consent; so it can be discussed in threads such as the following:

Is animal abuse any different than child abuse?
Eating Animals
Eggs
Animal Experiement Ethics
Speciesism
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: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#39  Postby Jackowens » June 13th, 2010, 5:35 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/12/10 (#38):

"Jackowens, you still haven't answered my question which I asked in post #24 and quoted in post #27 and #36:"


Sorry.

"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?"


It's not really an either/or matter.

If by consensual you mean did the girl say "yes", the answer is obvious: it was consensual. On the other hand, if by consensual you are talking about the legalities of the matter, it was not consensual.

Jackowens wrote: Is the dog competent to make that decision?

"No. A dog is not competent to consent."


I don't know how many times you've said that, but the question now, to repeat, is not whether the dog is competent to consent or not; it's whether the dog is competent to decide or not.

I mean that when we talk about consent, we're commonly talking about an agreement, tacit or overtly expressed, between two humans. Since, in contrast, we are talking about an animal and a human, the human for his part can be considered to consent, in his own mind (or on behalf of third party who gave the order) to giving food to the dog. The dog for its part does not in that sense consent to eat it; he decides to eat it or not.

Is the dog competent to make that decision?

Regards,

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

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

Post Number:#40  Postby Scott » June 13th, 2010, 6:19 pm

Jackowens wrote:It's not really an either/or matter.

It is an either/or matter as far as I can tell. Either it was consensual or not. Anything else would be a contradiction.

Jackowens wrote:If by consensual you mean did the girl say "yes", the answer is obvious: it was consensual.

Of course that's not what consensual means. There's countless examples of non-consensual interactions in which the victim said yes.

Jackowens wrote:On the other hand, if by consensual you are talking about the legalities of the matter, it was not consensual.

I agree. A young girl is incompetent to consent. Anywhere where the statutes do not agree with that, hopefully the statutes will be changed.

The movie Braveheart told the story of the King ordering his men to rape new wives in certain areas. This rape was legal. The point is that whether or not an activity is actually consensual is more fundamental than the law or legal code in any place at any given time. An act is either rape or its not. If an act is rape, and the law says it isn't rape or isn't illegal--such as in the case of the story told in the movie Braveheart--then the law is incorrect and hopefully will be changed.

Luckily, I and I think most people agree with the statutes for the most part in regards to there being an age of consent. The laws in most places have it right: Sex between a competent adult and a preteen is rape, and thus it is illegal. If the law in any place at some time said it was not rape if it was legal in that place and time, then the law in that place and time was incorrect.

Jackowens wrote:The dog for its part does not in that sense consent to eat it...

Exactly; I agree.

Jackowens wrote:Is the dog competent to make that decision?

A young child is too incompetent to consent to eating or not eating something. A dog is even more incompetent.

An incompetent being may exercise a decision, such as choosing to consume large quantities of alcohol, but its exercise of such decision-making power is incompetent and thus does not ever amount to valid consent. Thus, unlike with adults who can consent, whoever feeds the incompetent being is responsible for the effects.

For example, if a competent adult decides to voluntary purchases 60 cans of beer from the package store, goes home, and decides to drink them all as fast as he can and dies of an alcohol overdose, I wouldn't hold the package store owner responsible for the competent adults decision to engage in the consensual activity. In contrast, if an incompetent being decides to purchase 60 cans of beer the package store it cannot be a consensual purchase, and when the incompetent being goes home and using is incompetently exercises his decision-making ability, he decides to drinks all the beer as fast as he can and dies, I would hold the adult who sold him the beer and/or the adult in custody or supervision of him responsible.

Jackowens wrote:Is the dog competent to make that decision?

No. Young children are incompetent; Dogs are even more incompetent. They exercise their decision-making ability incompetently and irresponsible. That's why any decision they make is not consensual. In most circumstances, competent adults would presumably be held responsible for the inherently irresponsible decisions performed by and with incompetent beings, namely in that any interaction with the incompetent being is inherently non-consensual.
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: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#41  Postby Jackowens » June 13th, 2010, 6:38 pm

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/13/10 (#40):

Jackowens wrote: If by consensual you mean did the girl say "yes", the answer is obvious: it was consensual.

"Of course that's not what consensual means. There's countless examples of non-consensual interactions in which the victim said yes."


I don't understand that. If, instead of the girl's saying "yes", she said the opposite, "no" (or "maybe"), that would have been consensual?

"A dog is even more incompetent."


Would that mean, then, that no member of the animal kingdom, except humans, is competent to decide to eat or not to eat?

Regards,

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

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

Post Number:#42  Postby Scott » June 14th, 2010, 12:52 am

Scott wrote:[...]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?
Jackowens wrote:If by consensual you mean did the girl say "yes", the answer is obvious: it was consensual.
Scott wrote:Of course that's not what consensual means. There's countless examples of non-consensual interactions in which the victim said yes.
Jackowens wrote:I don't understand that. If, instead of the girl's saying "yes", she said the opposite, "no" (or "maybe"), that would have been consensual?

No.

Scott wrote:A dog is even more incompetent.
Jackowens wrote:Would that mean, then, that no member of the animal kingdom, except humans, is competent to decide to eat or not to eat?

Yes, that is correct--that is, insofar as animals like dogs are even less competent than young children and severely mentally retarded humans. No matter what the incompetent, irresponsible beings decide to do, any interaction with an incompetent being by a competent adults cannot be consensual because consensuality requires a competent, informed decision.
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: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#43  Postby Jackowens » June 14th, 2010, 4:34 am

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/13/10(#42):

Jackowens wrote: I don't understand that. If, instead of the girl's saying "yes", she said the opposite, "no" (or "maybe"), that would have been consensual?

"No."


No what?

Presumably the girl can say "yes" or "no". As far as the girl's consent goes, and putting it negatively, if she says "no", which is a possibility, she doesn't consent. Whether her consent/lack of consent is competent is another question.

"No matter what the incompetent, irresponsible beings decide to do, any interaction with an incompetent being by a competent adults cannot be consensual because consensuality requires a competent, informed decision."


No, no; I'm not talking about interaction with a consenting human, I'm talking about the simple fact of whether an animal is competent to decide to eat or not. For instance, it makes no difference where/how the animal perceives food, whether it's a squirrel spying an unguarded plate of food on a picnic table or a dog perceiving food on a plate placed on the foor, I would say that both are competent to decide whether to eat the food or not.

Competence of an animal in deciding whether or not to eat, humans aside, is proved by the fact that that is the way species survive.

Am I mistaken?

Regards,

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

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

Post Number:#44  Postby Scott » June 15th, 2010, 12:34 am

Scott wrote:[...]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?
Jackowens wrote:If by consensual you mean did the girl say "yes", the answer is obvious: it was consensual.
Scott wrote:Of course that's not what consensual means. There's countless examples of non-consensual interactions in which the victim said yes.
Jackowens wrote:I don't understand that. If, instead of the girl's saying "yes", she said the opposite, "no" (or "maybe"), that would have been consensual?
Scott wrote:No.
Jackowens wrote:No what?

You asked me if the sex would have been consensual if the girl said no (or maybe); the obvious answer is no, it would not have been consensual.

Jackowens wrote:No, no; I'm not talking about interaction with a consenting human, I'm talking about the simple fact of whether an animal is competent to decide to eat or not. For instance, it makes no difference where/how the animal perceives food, whether it's a squirrel spying an unguarded plate of food on a picnic table or a dog perceiving food on a plate placed on the foor, I would say that both are competent to decide whether to eat the food or not.

Competence of an animal in deciding whether or not to eat, humans aside, is proved by the fact that that is the way species survive.

Am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken. A young human child's ability or a severely mentally handicapped adult's ability to decide whether or not to eat a consumable substance is incompetent. An animal such as a dog is even more incompetent at deciding.

In contrast, the average human adult is relatively competent at processing information and exercising their decision-making ability--competent enough at least to be able to consent and thereby be responsible for their own decisions.
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: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

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

Post Number:#45  Postby Jackowens » June 15th, 2010, 4:27 am

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post of 6/14/10 (#44):

"You asked me if the sex would have been consensual if the girl said no (or maybe); the obvious answer is no, it would not have been consensual."


Then presumably I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction. What is it?

(Jack:) "Am I mistaken?"

"Yes, you are mistaken.


Then presumably I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction. What is it?

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 1 guest

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