It's o.k. if we agree to do it!

[jmvizanko]

I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Its not so much that any consensual activity is immoral or not, as it is that it should be allowed for the sake of freedom. Just because you, or somebody from some other religion, thinks something is immoral, does that mean you/they should be able to make it illegal? How would you feel if protestants made a law that praying to saints or Mary is illegal because it is immoral?

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

 

[jmvizanko]

If you had a child and a group of Non-Catholics got together and consented to kill that child. Would it be wrong? Why or why not?

Last time I checked the child isn’t consenting…

 

[TarkanAttila]

Last time I checked the child isn’t consenting…

By that same logic, a whole host of necessary and unnecessary things are also immoral. (Doctor’s visits, shots, education, eating your broccoli, IVF, simply being born into the world…)

The consent of a child is rarely a measure of morality, as rarely do children make rational, well-thought out decisions.

A better measure is the effect it has on a child, or on the child when he grows up.

Its not so much that any consensual activity is immoral or not, as it is that it should be allowed for the sake of freedom. Just because you, or somebody from some other religion, thinks something is immoral, does that mean you/they should be able to make it illegal? How would you feel if protestants made a law that praying to saints or Mary is illegal because it is immoral?

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

What if statistics and research show it harms society as a whole?

I believe that is why we now have a sin tax and publicly funded ads against smoking and driving drunk.

 

[Daizies]

You and me get together and we have this sweet gun. I have always wanted to know what it felt like to get shot, so I have you shoot me in the leg. We agreed right.? I consented right? Of course you can see how dumb this is. In fact in common law two people cannot consent to activity such as this (Like getting beat up).

A similar example to this would be if you signed a contract with me, the terms of which amount to slavery: you work for below minimum wages, and you agree you are required to work for me for 10 years and cannot quit. Despite the fact that you and I, consenting adults, agree to these terms, under law the terms of the contract cannot be enforced because they are illegal, and you cannot consent to slavery.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jm

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

So you believe dueling should be legal, even though between consenting parties, and that may result in serious wounds and/or death?

 

[wcknight]

This would mean that mutually assisted suicide would be okay, or just suicide would be okay, or anything that is self destructive, or mutually destructive, like smoking, cutting, piercing etc.

Or what about folks agreeing to dump trash or pollutants into the rivers or oceans or air.

These things may not offend any one immediately but they offend God and future generations.

 

[jmvizanko]

This would mean that mutually assisted suicide would be okay, or just suicide would be okay

Believe it or not, some people, myself included, do not see putting yourself out of excruciating misery, like the end of terminal cancer for instance, as morally bad.

or anything that is self destructive, or mutually destructive, like smoking, cutting, piercing etc.

Do you honestly think smoking and piercing should be illegal?

Or what about folks agreeing to dump trash or pollutants into the rivers or oceans or air.

These do directly affect / harm other people.

These things may not offend any one immediately but they offend God and future generations.

Well for the things that don’t affect other people directly, but offend God, let God take care of it, since a lot of us don’t think he’s even there and don’t think we’re offending anybody but the people that do.

 

[jmvizanko]

“Offending God” should not be a basis for making laws that apply to a society comprised of people that believe in different or no gods. If you can’t make a secular argument, such as how murder is bad because people don’t want to be killed and therefore it harms people, why should your morality be forced on me? How would you like to be in a Muslim theocracy, where women can’t show any skin in public and Christians can’t worship in a church, because it offends Allah, a god you don’t believe in?

 

[Godfollower]

I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Most victims of family abuse sincerely believe for a long time that the abuse is justified – that is, they agree that their abuser has the right to abuse (or, sometimes, “discipline”) them. Some of them cite religious reasons; some cite cultural reasons; some say you have to take the bitter (beatings) with the sweet (he “loves” me); some just think that’s the way it is. Many grew up in abusive families and honestly have no idea that love means (among other things) not beating your family.

If you are a moral relativist who believes that right and wrong depend solely on consent of the affected parties, then you must allow the beatings to continue unless and until the victim revokes her consent (e.g., by fleeing to a shelter, calling the police, etc.). Only then can you intervene on the ground that consent no longer holds. Or you can try to rationalize your way around it by claiming that her consent doesn’t count for some reason: she’s too immature to understand what she’s agreeing to (but many of them are quite old, well-educated, wealthy, professional, etc.); she is acting under duress (but many of them fight the charges against their abusers, even when they’ve been removed from the abuse); or what have you.

Or, like Catholics, you can say that family abuse is inherently evil and prohibited. But then you can’t be a moral relativist anymore.

 

[Shike]

If you are a moral relativist who believes that right and wrong depend solely on consent of the affected parties…

If I am not mistaken, in such a case it would not quite be moral relativism.

What’s so special about consent, why is it absolute? Why are the only beings with proportionate moral concern those who can consent?

 

[sw85]

I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Disagree, for obvious reasons. This principle relies on the assumption that goodness is endowed by the human will, which is obviously false and leads to horrors when rigorously applied. Morality is an objective fact of the order of being, binding and nonnegotiable.

 

[Godfollower]

If I am not mistaken, in such a case it would not quite be moral relativism.

It would be a form of moral relativism: what’s right and wrong varies from place to place, time to time, and individual to individual, depending (in this case posed by the OP) on the consent of the people affected.

What’s so special about consent, why is it absolute? Why are the only beings with proportionate moral concern those who can consent?

I agree with you: consent is not necessarily relevant to morality. This entire thread is in response to people who say everything’s okay as long as everyone consents; I say that’s a pretty poor way to define right and wrong.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

jm

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

So you believe dueling should be legal, even though between consenting parties, and that may result in serious wounds and/or death?

Just because two people consent to doing something harmful or immoral, does not mean that one wasn’t corerced or talked into it. Usually, one person is dominant. So a very forceful/bad person could coerce a naive/weak person to consent to something he/she doesn’t really want to do. Get it?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

I propose that it is impossible for an individual to hurt themselves, and NOT hurt others around them (society). I believe that, precisely because we are members of something bigger than ourselves (society), that if we are hurt, they (society) are hurt. Much in the same way that my left leg would feel if my right leg decided to injure itself. My left leg would not be very happy about what my right leg decided to do, even if the right leg consented to harming itself.

And, it is truly love of neighbor that compels us to prevent people from hurting themselves. Any other view seems to be ‘I don’t care about them, they can do to themselves what they want.’ I think the gospel message is that we should care about them, and want the best for them, even if they don’t.

 

[Rainaldo]

This entire thread is in response to people who say everything’s okay as long as everyone consents; I say that’s a pretty poor way to define right and wrong.

Yes but is is a way. In a nutshell, right and wrong are whatever conforms with or goes against one’s will. There are two situations where this is valid: if you are a young child, and if you are God.

 

[Godfollower]

Yes but is is a way. In a nutshell, right and wrong are whatever conforms with or goes against one’s will. There are two situations where this is valid: if you are a young child, and if you are God.

I wouldn’t even say young children get to follow that rule. Young kids are properly subject to doctor’s visits, including vaccinations, even if they scream “Nononononono!!!” at the top of their lungs; and abuse of young children is immoral, even if they agree to it. Their consent (or lack of it) is not definitive of right and wrong.

 

[Shike]

It would be a form of moral relativism: what’s right and wrong varies from place to place, time to time, and individual to individual, depending (in this case posed by the OP) on the consent of the people affected.

It would not be moral relativism unless you get random moral outcomes from the same set of circumstances with different moral agents. Morality based solely on circumstances is wrong, but it isn’t the same kind of wrong as moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t even take account of the circumstances. It is not a form of moral relativism.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Yes but is is a way. In a nutshell, right and wrong are whatever conforms with or goes against one’s will.

For those at a very low level of moral development, they may believe that what is right is whatever their will desires, and what is wrong is whatever they don’t want, but for those who have progressed a little farther up the ladder of moral development, right and wrong are defined more altruistically. Is this what you mean?

 

[Rainaldo]

For those at a very low level of moral development, they may believe that what is right is whatever their will desires, and what is wrong is whatever they don’t want, but for those who have progressed a little farther up the ladder of moral development, right and wrong are defined more altruistically. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. The next level of sophistication is that right and wrong are whatever is materially equal or fair - you break my toy, I break yours. This of course is a violation of the will of the one on whom the retribution is applied.

So right away we have yet another refutation of the idea that right and wrong are a matter of mutual consent: to punish someone for a crime is universally approved, yet presumably no one consents to being punished, so there you have a paradox.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.

Hey, I heard this story about two adults in a garden and their consenting to eat some forbidden fruit.