Consent and Rights: Consent #2 - Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Tom Dougherty (University of Cambridge) continues his exploration of the nature of consent and its relationship to morality, rights, and harm.
Thanks for watching! To learn more about philosophy and critical thinking, please subscribe! bit.ly/1vz5fK9
More on Tom Dougherty:
goo.gl/NMTnWV
----
Instagram:
@wiphiofficial
Twitter:
/ wirelessphi
Facebook:
on. 1XC2tx3
Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:
bit.ly/1nQJcF7
----
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/iR5j/
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/kbNd/

[@taranbarber5075]

The popular debate doesn't seem to be which of the two viewpoints, the behavioral or mental, is right or wrong. People understand that we can't read each other's minds, so behavior, at some point and in some way, is required to have any idea of what someone is thinking. I think the actual questions about consent that society cares about are the epistemological "How can you be sure?" and the probabilistic "How sure are you?"

[@bobmiller3627]

The mental view of consent is kind of like that disgusting quote from one of Ayn Rand's "heroes" that reads, "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." The same could also be said of the common adage, "It's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission." Both are wholly focused on one person getting what they want at the cost of other people, a selfish and despicable mindset one might say.

[@AquaStockYT]

You seem to have an intensely problematic view of individualism, I would unpack if you've been sold on an interpretation of it which is perpetrator-victim-oriented and might want to reconsider reading The Fountainhead again. If coercion is all you got out of it, I think that says more of your own (erroneously) believed capacity to know better for another's life than themself.

[@AquaStockYT]

Because Ayn Rand literally spent her whole life trying to stop uninformed, coercive, "rapey" consent and the fact that her memory and legacy is tarnished in such a way illuminates the pervasiveness of the "AgnoHedoMaterial Mandate of Heaven"

[@spoonthief9107]

I agree with the mental view somewhat, as communication is not the only way that consent can become public. If you know your neighbor well enough, you may be able to predict how they will feel about using their driveway. In that case, your past knowledge will serve as a replacement for communication as a way of recognizing their attitudes. If you tackle someone out of the way of an incoming truck, then what you are using to predict their mental state is the knowledge that the vast majority of people don't want to be hit by trucks. Obviously, communication is usually more reliable as a means of figuring out what people think, but that does not discount other ways in every situation.

[@mikedebell2242]

It's notable, at least in the U.S. court system, that the mental view is held. No response is assumed as consent. Also, consent is assumed if you sign something indicating you will comply with some rule which, if you don't, you will suffer some harm to your livelyhood.

[@HunterHogan]

According to the video, the behavioral view says that 1) a decision is necessary but not sufficient and 2) a decision is inherently private. (It is inherently private because the decision alone cannot be binding, according to the video. Logically, this means that the behavioral view must believe that we can never directly know the decision of the actor: we can only know the decision through evidence, such as the actor indicating consent. Therefore, the actual decision of the actor is irrelevant in the behavioral view because we can never directly know the actual decision. This makes the debate much easier to parse. The behavioral view has one element: a sufficient and valid indication of consent. The mental view has one element: the informed decision of a competent actor. The audience of this video cannot evaluate the claims of this video because it is unclear who is deciding whether the actor consented. The video does mention, once, that the behavioral view criticizes the mental view because the behavioral view (apparently) believes that consent must be "binding" for the consent to be valid. That implies that the behavioral view, according to the video, measures consent from a third-party perspective. The video does not tell the audience, however, about the characteristics of this third party. Therefore, while the ideas in the video are interesting, the audience is incapable of accepting or rejecting any of the claims because all of the claims are incomplete without explicitly defining the entity who measures consent in an interaction between two people.

[@hcheyne]

I agree that you can consent without communicating it. Your rights to say no, can't be infringed if you never want to say no. On the other hand the person who acts without knowing your consent is not just acting irresponsibly, but also immorally. They have knowingly ignored your agency. On the other (foot?), if they have a tacit understanding of what you would normally consent to, this may just be risky. E.g. operating on someone who is unconscious to save their life. Either way without their communicated consent, or without a tacit legal precedent, acting without knowing you have consent should be avoided.

[@davidlafayette2151]

Disagree, consent and moral permissibility would have to be analyzed in such a discussion. Perhaps disrespect could be a confounding variable between consent and moral permissibility. However, if acting without having consent is not probable in all cases, then by definition it should not be avoided. Informal consent, perhaps better wording than a mental view, could be the creation of sentient beings by God, or the protection of others during an exigency where their life is being threatened and they are full of fear. One might say either is disrespectful, sure, but it is morally permissible.

[@connorfrankston5548]

I think that the behavioral view of consent is encompassed by the mental view of consent, since you can think for example that an action is not okay if you didn't indicate your consent behaviorally. The actions of parking the van with behavioral consent and parking the van without behavioral consent are different, and can be categorized as acceptable or unacceptable independently according to mental consent. On the other hand behavioral consent does not encompass mental consent. Mental consent only is a more versatile philosophical framework that does not actually compromise the need for behavioral indications of consent, since behaviors are dependent on context.

[@sesuncedu]

It would seem that some problems are easier to consider if "consent" is taken as if it refers to some mental state, separate from the issue of what is necessary for a second party to form a morally justified belief that some act is "consented to". Example: A "consents to" waiving some right R against B, but does not manifest this through any behavior that would allow B to form a justified belief that they have so "consented". It seems consistent to argue that (1) A is not be morally justified in subsequently asserting R against B. (2) B is not morally justified in violating R. Claim (1) seems easier to discuss if there is some thing that can be considered to be the state of having "consented to" some thing, independent of behaviour.

[@erupendragon7376]

Mental view is totally not a thing. It is probably a fallacy by itself. Consent might be given through social contracts, or conventions. Might be inferred through previous interactions, etc, etc. I challenge any philosopher to give a single example where mind view is a thing. Either the subject consents directly/indirectly, or the agent ignored consent and post fact the subject simply does not show disagreement. Acceptance post fact is not the same as consent.

[@Invercagil]

"Might be inferred through previous interactions", but according to the behavioral view that ain't consent. That point is enough to make the behavioral view very unlikely to me.

[@libertyismyindefeasiblerig3838]

I believe that communication is a pre requisite for getting someone's consent in general normal circumstances to be morally right and act responsibly. As one cannon judge others emotions which are influenced by many factors, some even extraneous. However, situation too plays a critical role in justifying whether communication for consent was necessary? Saving a drowning subject. Or returning someone else's wallet

[@michaelromeo4623]

Seems to me as though the behavioural view is 'opt in' conditional (approval required) where as the mental view is 'opt out' conditional (approval assumed)

[@annarchie9949]

I don't see how anyone could take the mental view. Consent can not actually be only in your head by definition, because it is a relationship between people, not a feature of any of these people.

[@loominous_flux]

I consent to being the first person to comment on this video

[@brandonbrisbane2145]

The metal view is demonstrably not a good formulation of consent compared to the behavioral view, in that the benefits of the mental view reside within the behavioral view without its drawbacks. As stated in the video, both views depend on a decision first for consent to be given. The mental view stops here, saying consent has been given by this point. The mental view takes it a step further saying that this decision must be communicated to count. Both views give the full control of decisions as they both start in the mind. However the behavioral view has the benefit of actually working in the context of morality. As a moral actor I must be able to decide what a moral action is. For an act to be moral, I need consent. If we use the mental view of consent, I as a moral actor will never have the justification that my act is moral, as I never will have your consent. So even if you allow me to act, it would be immoral for me to do so as I do not have your consent. Consent must be given for an act to be moral, thus consent must be GIVEN not just decided privately.

[@surchipparoski9814]

Basically, just existing, you already gave consent. Its more like expressing after that.

[@quintessenceSL]

The problem isn't so much when/how consent is given (silence implies consent), but when consent is withdrawn. Deciding in the middle of your neighbor moving that using your driveway isn't permissible has all sorts of ramifications (did they get your behavioral consent? In writing? Did they abide by all the terms of the consent, etc.) perhaps best typified by when the Southern USA revoked their consent to be in the Union. You know how well that turned out (best of luck with your brexit).

[@Christopher_Gibbons]

Yes consent requires communication, but communication does not imply words. The vast majority of personal communication is non-verbal. It would defy human nature to impose verbal communication on consent.

[@Kumaryoku]

Christopher Gibbons Someone didn't watch the video before commenting I guess

[@Christopher_Gibbons]

அபிலாஷ் வாஸுதேவன் well yes empiricall thought is fairly new the historical sence, but we are not taking about effectiveness of a society we are talking about morality. There has never been an advanced civilization that did not have some sort of well developed form of hand and facial gestures. If you point to the last donut and the owner nods, that is just as clearly consent as if you had the same exchange verbally. It fits all the same stipulations in the video. It is active, and public. It requires direct action from the person giving consent, and everyone can see the exchange.

[@cjwill9920]

What if you didn't consent and you do mind but you simply lack the confidence to speak up

[@km1dash6]

Can you explicitly talk about tacit consent. And are there problems with giving consent in the future? Like, if I say "You can do x at time t." But when time t comes around, and I mentally revoke consent, but don't make that explicit, it doesn't seem clear. Going back to the car example, I tell my neighbor she can park her car in my driveway tomorrow, but tomorrow comes and I change my mind. It doesn't seem like a violation has occurred. In fact, it would seem rude if I confronted my neighbor about it, like I broke my side of a deal. Furthermore, it seems like touching someone shoulder to wake her up if she asks to be woken up after 15 minutes shouldn't be a violation, but under this definition it is. And it seems like under some cases it's not clear. It seems like consent is much more complicated than simply a promise or permission. Maybe when you know someone, like a family member or friend, it's simple, but with others not so much.

[@XyntXII]

your example of waking someone up is them giving consent to such a contact in asking you to wake them up. If you wake them up by licking their face it might be another topic, but since it is common to wake someone up through some touch I would say this is permissible in most cases. Also when you know a person you learned the boundaries in which it is common to act in your relationship. So you may know who in your circle of friends does not like to be hugged etc. Furthermore you learn to read the people better, so the nonverbal comunication gets easier.

[@km1dash6]

wantin I agree with the second part, but I know people who don't like to be touched, and come from countries where if, just as an example, you ask someone to wake you up, it's an implicit assumption that you just call their name. In the USA, and many other countries, it's OK to touch someone on the shoulder to wake them up, because it's assumed, and in other countries it isn't. Going onto something more controversial, in many parts of the USA it's seen as okay for a woman to wake her partner up through... lets say some more physical actions, and I've met men who said, while they didn't give their consent at first, they liked it, and gave their consent retroactively and for the future, and I've met men who this happened to and they said it was rape. What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of social and cultural assumptions that play into consent and what is allowed, and I think the video here, while it touches on it at the end, doesn't really address it.

[@MedEighty]

Behavioural view, all the way. People can't read minds.

[@JohnSmith-td7hd]

I'm falling asleep here.

[@kicker7955]

Wow, now you kinda went out there. You can't invent categories as a mental excercise and then invoke them as an argument.