From consent to morality

[Trebor135]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

 

[ASimon]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

I suppose it’s problematic in the case of incest, and for promiscuity in general, as well. Though in the case of the former, you don’t see it happening enough that it deserves much attention. Promiscuity is a bigger issue, first, because it does happen so much more often, but also because all the “consent” shared between the various parties doesn’t preclude the conception of a child that never got to vote on anyone’s choices.

 

[nebraskabeth]

So if X and Y are doing Z and Z is a suicide pact, can we not say that Z is moraly wrong just because of what it is, on its own merit. What other examples can anyone think of in which Z is offensive even to non-religious but no third party is brought in?

 

[Spock]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

Let’s just use a slightly different version of this excellent argument: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. In other words, if it does not affect you, it is none of your business.

To help with the problem, let me quote a great old joke: “The police gets a phone call from an old spinster. She is outraged and reports that a couple, who live across the street habitually engage in disgusting sexual practices. Two officers come out to investigate. They can see nothing at all when they look at the window of the other apartment. The old woman says: ‘of course you cannot see it from there!’ And she climbs up on the top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod and leans out sidways. ‘Come up here, and you will see their disgusting actions!!’ - she says.”

I hope this helps!

Of course you are welcome to pass a negative judgment on these people, but as your post indicates, you would like to see a rational underpinning of passing such judgment. I don’t think you will ever see a rational (aka. non-faith-based) argument. But we shall see.

 

[Sair]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

The argument, when it comes to sexual ethics, is in part dependent upon how you view both the nature of the human body and the principal function of the sex act.

If the body is an autonomous unit, subject only to its own consent, then its own consent is all that’s required. If the body, however, is a possession of one’s god - or a ‘temple of the holy spirit’ - then more than one’s own consent is required for actions that affect one’s body. I’ve only ever seen this argument deployed in relation to sex, though - no-one speaks of requiring God’s permission to take a bath, or to indulge in a delicious dinner, or to have certain medical procedures, for example.

The principal function of sexual intercourse, according to Catholic belief, is the transmission of life - or at least the provision of an open channel via which God may transmit life. The church has admitted that it has a unifying function also, but I’ve never seen this considered separately from the transmission-of-life function. (Interestingly, this only applies to human life - I’ve never seen the church object to human meddling in the reproductive processes of other animals, though presumably the belief is that this requires God’s intervention also.)

These considerations have obvious implications for engaging in sexual activity. In the secular world, only the consent of the parties involved is required for legitimate sexual activity to occur. In the faith-based world, God’s consent, in the form of religiously-sanctioned marriage, is required before intimate sexual behaviour can occur. As far as the transmission-of-life function of intercourse is concerned, the secular world has found a number of ways in which this function can be worked around or counteracted. Such ways are generally forbidden in the faith-based world. Of course there are sound reasons to avoid bringing a child into the world unless one wants - and is in a position to care for - said child, but this is not a reason for a secular person to abstain from sexual activity in such a way as to avoid pregnancy. There are a plethora of intimate actions which can be performed that carry no risk of pregnancy and yet allow for mutual pleasure and bonding between a couple. Again, these are generally forbidden by most religions - sexual pleasure must usually be paid for by the production of offspring.

I can certainly think of sound secular arguments for why sexual intimacy should not be undertaken lightly - no matter how many people insist otherwise, it cannot be separated from emotional intimacy, and the effects of trying to do so are demonstrably harmful. However, if the parties involved have genuine affection for each other, and are not simply using one another with no regard for their partners’ feelings, I don’t think there is any argument against sexual intimacy that would hold water. If you think one partner is being used or deceived by the other, you are within your rights as a friend and fellow being to express your concern, but you cannot be wise for other people. It is up to you how you conduct your own life, and to decide upon such principles as you wish to uphold and demonstrate. It is not up to you to decide how others conduct theirs. Perhaps if you are true to yourself, and morally consistent according to your own beliefs, then others will respond to your example.

 

[Shike]

Basically we all breathe the same air. Often times what one person does will have an effect on the rest of us.

Someone, say a father, who harms himself may also be harming his children by diminishing his capacity to love and care for them.

The greatest goods, when twisted, become some of the greatest evils. Sex is a great good, but when misused it profoundly harms the individuals involved. They may not see any physical damage, but there is much to be said with regards to the damage done to emotional health and one’s personality.

Thus the damage inflicted upon themselves will influence their future choices in a negative way. And it will inevitably cause social consequences.

Sex is sometimes a funny thing, in that it is both extremely private and yet at the same time extremely public.

 

[Spock]

The greatest goods, when twisted, become some of the greatest evils. Sex is a great good, but when misused it profoundly harms the individuals involved. They may not see any physical damage, but there is much to be said with regards to the damage done to emotional health and one’s personality.

Empty assertions are dime a dozen.

 

[Sair]

The greatest goods, when twisted, become some of the greatest evils. Sex is a great good, but when misused it profoundly harms the individuals involved. They may not see any physical damage, but there is much to be said with regards to the damage done to emotional health and one’s personality.

Thus the damage inflicted upon themselves will influence their future choices in a negative way. And it will inevitably cause social consequences.

It’s a question of how you define ‘misuse’ of a particular good. It’s easy to see how, for example, overeating can lead to actual and very obvious physical harm, or how the abuse of drugs designed to heal can do very real harm. It’s far less obvious that extramarital sex, in and of itself, is harmful, nor, indeed, how one might measure such ‘harm’ as it is claimed to do.

What counts as ‘misuse’ of sex? According to the church, any and all sexual activity that takes place outside the bonds of marriage, regardless of whether this is consensual or not, regardless of whether conception results or not, is deemed ‘disordered’. To back up this assertion, all manner of evils, from prostitution and rape to broken homes are blamed upon misuse of sex. Never mind that there are concomitant factors that might also take the blame for such things, like a lack of respect or socioeconomic opportunities for women, poverty, violence or just simple carelessness and lack of commitment. It’s all the fault of extramarital sex, apparently.

As I said, sexual intimacy is something that should not be taken lightly, because it has important consequences for the people involved. The question is whether you can objectively and definitively lay the abovementioned raft of social evils at the door of every unmarried couple that engages in consensual sexual activity.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

That argument is flawed because it assumes that what X and Y do has no effect on A, B, C… In reality we are not isolated individuals but members of a community in which our activity often has profound effects on others, particularly children who are deeply influenced by their parents, teachers, role models, peers and advertising. The colossal amount of unnecessary misery caused by sexual permissiveness in our society demonstrates that we have not only the right but the obligation to condemn immoral behaviour and point out the folly of putting pleasure before everything else. If we live like wild beasts we shall be victims of the law of the jungle…

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

Too general, many factors are not taken into consideration. Such as what tonyrey pointed out. But also, what are the ages of X and Y, is X or Y consciousness of the activity, what is the activity of Z, is X, Y or Z harmfully affect in anyway, etc…

 

[Spock]

Too general, many factors are not taken into consideration.

Actually, everything pertinent is taken into consideration. The OP stipulates that ALL the participants are aware of the consequences and ALL of them consent. To say that there are other people, who are also affected, simply changes the parameters of the scenario - which amounts to create a straw-man argument. Whether the activity is harmful to the participants themselves is no one else’s business, as long as the participants themselves are aware of the consequences and consent to it.

There was case in Germany, where a person consented to be killed by someone, and he also consented to be eaten by the killer. Since it was mutually agreed upon, with full knowledge of the consequences, it was their business and no one else’s. To say that it was harmful to those who later heard about this incidence is nonsense. We do have the right to be spared and protected from unwanted information. As they say, if you don’t like what you hear and say, walk away. Consider the old spinster in the quoted joke above.

 

[Sair]

Too general, many factors are not taken into consideration. Such as what tonyrey pointed out. But also, what are the ages of X and Y, is X or Y consciousness of the activity, what is the activity of Z, is X, Y or Z harmfully affect in anyway, etc…

These considerations apply to all kinds of activities, not just sex - which seems to be the OP’s primary concern, since it is one of the most common ‘vices’ encountered in a college/university environment (apart from drug use, perhaps).

One might wonder, for example, why it is sexual permissiveness that comes in for greater criticism than, say, fast food restaurants. Why is it considered a sin to share sexual pleasure with a friend, but not a burger and fries? If we take into account the harmful and far-reaching impact of the fast food industry - including its effects upon children - surely the latter activity ought to be considered far more reprehensible, in light of the above considerations, than the former.

 

[Shike]

It’s all the fault of extramarital sex, apparently.

As I said, sexual intimacy is something that should not be taken lightly, because it has important consequences for the people involved. The question is whether you can objectively and definitively lay the abovementioned raft of social evils at the door of every unmarried couple that engages in consensual sexual activity.

Well I never said all those things are merely the fault of extramarital sex, I just said that it is harmful to those involved. It’s because of what the human person is… natural law ect. Just because one cannot measure the damage doesn’t mean that no damage occurs. We know that other actions that go against natural law are harmful, so why should sex be any different?

I like how you acknowledge some of the gravity of the situation, however.

 

[Shike]

There was case in Germany, where a person consented to be killed by someone, and he also consented to be eaten by the killer. Since it was mutually agreed upon, with full knowledge of the consequences, it was their business and no one else’s. To say that it was harmful to those who later heard about this incidence is nonsense. We do have the right to be spared and protected from unwanted information. As they say, if you don’t like what you hear and say, walk away. Consider the old spinster in the quoted joke above.

Yes, and the removal of members from society will not be harmful to society. And the character of someone who engages in murder won’t be influenced negatively and therefore affect any future actions either.

There’s a bigger picture that is being missed.

 

[Spock]

Yes, and the removal of members from society will not be harmful to society.

Not necessarily. It could be beneficial. But either way, if someone makes a decision about his own life (call it suicide), then society should acknowledge his right to take an exit. If that person asks someone else to perform a mercy killing then it is their own business. Society should have no say-so in the matter.

And the character of someone who engages in murder won’t be influenced negatively and therefore affect any future actions either.

There’s a bigger picture that is being missed.

Actually you need to look at the greater picture. It is not a “murder” if that act is mutually agreed upon. Murder is the illegal taking of some other human’s life without his consent.

 

[Shike]

Not necessarily. It could be beneficial. But either way, if someone makes a decision about his own life (call it suicide), then society should acknowledge his right to take an exit. If that person asks someone else to perform a mercy killing then it is their own business. Society should have no say-so in the matter.

Actually you need to look at the greater picture. It is not a “murder” if that act is mutually agreed upon. Murder is the illegal taking of some other human’s life without his consent.

I don’t think leaving the definition of murder and morality merely to the state is such a good idea. And that certainly isn’t the legal definition of murder that has been in play in western society for the last say… well I don’t know… but a very long time.

But anyways, I only need to show that killing someone could be detrimental to society. Now unless someone believes in utilitarianism, one shouldn’t go around playing master of life and death, regardless if consent is given or not.

I think this whole thread boils down to: some things are detrimental to us regardless of whether we like it or not. The four-year-old who eats an outrageous amount of ice-cream is going to have problems, regardless of how much he likes ice-cream or if science can devise a way to replace his stomach.

 

[Spock]

But anyways, I only need to show that killing someone could be detrimental to society.

No, “could be” is never an argument.

Now unless someone believes in utilitarianism, one shouldn’t go around playing master of life and death, regardless if consent is given or not.

Consent is the most important part.

I think this whole thread boils down to: some things are detrimental to us regardless of whether we like it or not. The four-year-old who eats an outrageous amount of ice-cream is going to have problems, regardless of how much he likes ice-cream or if science can devise a way to replace his stomach.

Sure, there are things which have detrimental consequences. But when that detrimental consequence is known, and accepted, then it is only the affected person’s decision which counts. We all know that smoking is detrimental to one’s health. Do you think that smoking should be banned because it MAY cause lung cancer? What about eating junk food? That is unhealthy, too. Should it be curtailed? Driving cars can be lethal. Should driving cars be outlawed?

No! As long as one knows the possible consequences (which affect only him), and accepts them it is only his business.

Of course you may disagree with this. But you cannot bring up a rational argument against it. To endorse the “nanny-state” would not be rational.

 

[tonyrey]

If we live like wild beasts we shall be victims of the law of the jungle…

On reflection it would be more accurate to say that if we live like wild beasts or domesticated animals we shall be victims of the law of the jungle…

 

[Shike]

Sure, there are things which have detrimental consequences. But when that detrimental consequence is known, and accepted, then it is only the affected person’s decision which counts. We all know that smoking is detrimental to one’s health. Do you think that smoking should be banned because it MAY cause lung cancer? What about eating junk food? That is unhealthy, too. Should it be curtailed? Driving cars can be lethal. Should driving cars be outlawed?

No! As long as one knows the possible consequences (which affect only him), and accepts them it is only his business.

Well I think that is what is precisely at issue in this thread with regards to sexual promiscuity, that people do not know the consequences and that the consequences affect the rest of us. For all the sex education that gets promoted nowadays, we as a people still are pretty dumb.

And with regards to killing someone as being beneficial to society… if you want to play the utilitarian game then I pity you because it just doesn’t work. The theory is dead.

 

[Spock]

Well I think that is what is precisely at issue in this thread with regards to sexual promiscuity, that people do not know the consequences and that the consequences affect the rest of us.

I ask you: how does the practice of non-conception-oriented, but still mutually agreed upon sex “affects” you? It happens in the privacy of the bedroom of a married and Catholic couple, who decide that they would rather not have children at that particular moment, but still wish to express their mutual love by performing a “non-vaginal” sex. You don’t even know about it (unless you emulate that old spinster in the joke above). Where is the “detrimental” affect?

And with regards to killing someone as being beneficial to society… if you want to play the utilitarian game then I pity you because it just doesn’t work. The theory is dead.

I think that the 6 million Jews, gypsys and other assorted “lower cast” people who were exterminated in the Holocaust would vehemently agree that killing Hitler would have been an excellent idea. And I agree with them.