Morality of consent

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by Cribs
[b]I see no immorality in that case, just a big stinky mess.

You do not believe it to be immoral to degrade someone purely for your own benefit ?

[/b]

It would not have been purely for Snoop and 50's benefit.
The shat upon would benefit equally by her pay. If the
benefit she got was less than theirs, she would have
asked for a higher price. If her benefit was more, then
Snoop and 50 overpaid.

Mutual consent entails that all parties act reasonably
and responsibly. This is why the law does not recognize
the "consent" of a minor.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are projecting your own values into the scenario. It is possible that the hypothetical woman has no qualms about the activity in question and does not feel degraded. If she is a free and willing participant, then as Cribs pointed out there is no immorality.

So, alienation in capitalist working conditions is morally all right because the participating workers agree with it. They are also free and they state that they do not suffer from it. Therefore it is morally acceptable, right ?

Originally posted by rwingett
You are projecting your own values into the scenario. It is possible that the hypothetical woman has no qualms about the activity in question and does not feel degraded. If she is a free and willing participant, then as Cribs pointed out there is no immorality.

Rwingo: "You are projecting your own values into the scenario"

I can't believe that this is a "real leftie" saying this. Even the anarchists have become liberals today. The "Morals of the Market Place" rule the right AND the left .....

Rwingo,what ever happened to the theory that Capitalism reduces every human relationship to an economical (money) exchange relation. It is really shocking (well i've experienced it before) to see how people who consider themselves to belong to the political left are reasoning in a way a liberal capitalist would gladly approve of.

Originally posted by Cribs
It would not have been purely for Snoop and 50's benefit.
The shat upon would benefit equally by her pay. If the
benefit she got was less than theirs, she would have
asked for a higher price. If her benefit was more, then
Snoop and 50 ...[text shortened]... his is why the law does not recognize
the "consent" of a minor.

Yes Cribs, the "Morals of the Market Place" that's all we have left, isn't it ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Yes Cribs, the "Morals of the Market Place" that's all we have left, isn't it ?

It's all we ever had.

Originally posted by Cribs
It's all we ever had.

Speak for yourself Cribs, speak for yourself !

Originally posted by pcaspian
I am referring to morality within the scope of consent. As person C clearly does not consent to person A or B killing them, your objection fails.

Either way, I am referring specifically to acts of consent which fall within the realm of degradation of one of the consenting persons.

thanks
[/b]

Perhaps morality is the wrong concept...or at least it should include the psychological needs of those consenting.

There is a high incidence of domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual assualt as well as incest in the histories of those who engage in prostitution and ponography reguardless of gender.

Addicitions carry their own imperatives which can negate moral imperatives. There are prostitutes throughout the world today who do not have alternatives. The wealthy of the world prey upon the poor of the world. Even in America, there are imported sexual slaves. There are people who travel to Thailand, the Phillipines and other parts of the world in order to engage in sexual acts which are illegal here.

?????????????

Originally posted by Aynat
Perhaps morality is the wrong concept...or at least it should include the psychological needs of those consenting.

There is a high incidence of domestic violence, child abuse and child sexual assualt as well as incest in the histories of those who engage in prostitution and ponography reguardless of gender.

Addicitions carry their own imperatives which c ...[text shortened]... rts of the world in order to engage in sexual acts which are illegal here.

?????????????

None of the cases you cite fall under what I mean by
Mutal Consent.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Rwingo: "You are projecting your own values into the scenario"

I can't believe that this is a "real leftie" saying this. Even the anarchists have become liberals today. The "Morals of the Market Place" rule the right AND the left .....

Rwingo,what ever happened to the theory that Capitalism reduces every human relationship to an economical (mon ...[text shortened]... to the political left are reasoning in a way a liberal capitalist would gladly approve of.

Well, we live in a capitalist society and it doesn't look like that is going to be changing anytime soon.

The only difference I can see with an anarchist society is that the woman would be freed from having economic necessity influence her decision. It is possible that in an anarchistic society women would have no problems finding satisfying alternatives to prostitution and the industry would wither away. Most likely it would still continue in a reduced capacity. But either way, the women would be free to make that decision themselves. If (for whatever reason) a woman preferred to make her living that way, then she should be free to do so without recrimination.

Originally posted by Cribs
None of the cases you cite fall under what I mean by
Mutal Consent.

there is woman paid to be defecated upon by two men and this is not mutual consent???

And, you seem to be okay with that? What kind of person would want to degrade and humiliate someone like that? And what pathology would it require for someone to agree to that?

Originally posted by Aynat
there is woman paid to be defecated upon by two men and this is not mutual consent???

And, you seem to be okay with that? What kind of person would want to degrade and humiliate someone like that? And what pathology would it require for someone to agree to that?

You didn't follow the thread correctly. Pcaspian was the one
who said mutual consent existed there. I never contested that.
Try reading the thread again.

Originally posted by Cribs
None of the cases you cite fall under what I mean by
Mutal Consent.

Would you say that if a few people wanted to do some of the acts spoken about earlier in my home and I said, "no" would that matter? Consent is still there between the people, we can call them adults too, but if I object does that negate their willingness to do those things at least in my home?
If I am allowed to set the rules within my own home, does that settle all debates at least as far as my house is concern?

Now, if the universe were to belong to someone who objected to certain acts, for whatever reasons, would consent matter at all even if it were between a large number of adults?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Would you say that if a few people wanted to do some of the acts spoken about earlier in my home and I said, "no" would that matter? Consent is still there between the people, we can call them adults too, but if I object does that negate their willingness to do those things at least in my home?
If I am allowed to set the rules within my own home, does th ...[text shortened]... hatever reasons, would consent matter at all even if it were between a large number of adults?

You have the title to your house. It can be legally verified to the satisfaction of everyone that it is, in fact, your house. To infer that there is an "owner of the universe" would be pure speculation on your part. And for you to claim that you have knowledge of what this speculative being objects to is a highly questionable statement.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Would you say that if a few people wanted to do some of the acts spoken about earlier in my home and I said, "no" would that matter? Consent is still there between the people, we can call them adults too, but if I object does that negate their willingness to do those things at least in my home?
If I am allowed to set the rules within my own home, does th ...[text shortened]... hatever reasons, would consent matter at all even if it were between a large number of adults?

See RWillis's reply. I couldn't have said it better.

Originally posted by rwingett
You have the title to your house. It can be legally verified to the satisfaction of everyone that it is, in fact, your house. To infer that there is an "owner of the universe" would be pure speculation on your part. And for you to claim that you have knowledge of what this speculative being objects to is a highly questionable statement.

My statement was to if there was an owner of the universe! Who that may be is another thing altogether. If there is indeed an owner of the universe, and it is by all rights his/her's than I ask you again, would their objection be enough to void consent as a basis for calling any deed moral/okay/good/fine/legal and so on?