Originally posted by pcaspian
Ok, have had a couple of arguments and discussions regarding morality and consent. So far the general consensus has been that provided two adults consent to a certain action, it is considered morally permissable.
Cribs:
"I don't think this is even close to the general consensus that
has arisen here.
If you and I consent to cooperate with each other to kill a
third party, that consensual action between two adults would
not be morally permissible.
So your assessment of the general consensus is inaccurate.
The consensus has found that some such instances are morally
permissible, but you are the one that has generalized to all
such instances, and it is your generalization that is incorrect.
Ivanhoe:
".... and what about the situation wherein the third party has given his or her consent ?
02 Aug '04 01:25 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by Cribs
No. My objection stands. Your generalization fails.
Ivanhoe: "You could answer my question, Cribs. Maybe that would shine some light in the darkness of the substance of the "Consenting Adults" Theory.
... it really doesn't matter whether there are two or three consenting adults.
I'll open a new thread because this is a different subject."
Originally posted by CribsOK cribs.
I did. Allow me to repeat it: "In that case, pcaspian's generalization is still a false
assessment of the general consensus."
If two people decide to murder someone and the third party, who is to be murdered, gives his or her consent, then is the act of murdering the third party morally acceptable in your eyes ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI guess that is always true and that there are no exceptions.
That means Cribs that EVERYTHING is morally acceptable as long as consent is given for the act in question by the person(s) who are participating in the act.
... or are there exceptions ?
As pcaspian said, I'm not really "well-versed" in this realm.
Ask bbarr if you want to know the real answer.
Originally posted by CribsCribs: "Ask bbarr if you want to know the real answer"
I guess that is always true and that there are no exceptions.
As pcaspian said, I'm not really "well-versed" in this realm.
Ask bbarr if you want to know the real answer.
Since when is bbarr your spokesman and why do you assume that Bbarr has got the real answer ?
What is wrong with the "Consenting Adults" theory is that it tests or screens an action only by looking at the decision-making PROCEDURE that preceded the act in question, without screening the act itself.
That is what I call the bureaucratic essence of the "Consenting Adults" theory. It screens a decision-making procedure preceding the act, NOT the act itself.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAsk pcaspian that question. He is the one that wanted to hear
Cribs: "Ask bbarr if you want to know the real answer"
Since when is bbarr your spokesman and why do you assume that Bbarr has got the real answer ?
from bbarr instead of me. I was just passing along that advice.
And bbarr is not my spokesman. I gave my own answer: always
true, no exception. I was just directing you to him in case you
wanted the "real" answer like pcaspian did.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt sounds to me like you are trying to bake one of
What is wrong with the "Consenting Adults" theory is that it tests or screens an action only by looking at the decision-making PROCEDURE that preceded the act in question, without screening the act itself.
That is what I call the bureaucratic essence of the "Consenting Adults" theory. It screens a decision-making procedure preceding the act, NOT the act itself.
your Ivanhoe special, home-cooked, circular definitions:
A decision is moral if it results in a moral act.
A moral act is the result of a moral decision.
Originally posted by Cribs
Ask pcaspian that question. He is the one that wanted to hear
from bbarr instead of me. I was just passing along that advice.
And bbarr is not my spokesman. I gave my own answer: always
true, no exception. I was just directing you to him in case you
wanted the "real" answer like pcaspian did.
You gave the "true answer" within popular moral secular reasoning.
Status quo secular ethics do not test the actual act, but it tests the preceding procedure to see if consent has been given by the participants. That's all. The result can be a big stinking bloody mess, but as long as consent has been given everything is rosy and all right !
In fact Cribs, you do not know anymore what is inherently morally right and what is inherently morally wrong !
..... or are you just pretending ?
Originally posted by CribsNo Cribs, this escape route is closed !
It sounds to me like you are trying to bake one of
your Ivanhoe special, home-cooked, circular definitions:
A decision is moral if it results in a moral act.
A moral act is the result of a moral decision.
Cribs: "A decision is moral if it results in a moral act.
A moral act is the result of a moral decision."
You made that up Cribs, that's exactly NOT what I am stating.
Cribs you are trying very hard to NOT understand what I am saying.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, if I figured out the true answer, either
You gave the "true answer" within popular moral secular reasoning.
Status quo secular ethics do not test the actual act, but it tests the preceding procedure to see if consent has been given by the participants. That's all. The result can be a big stinking bloody mess, but as long as consent has been given everything is rosy and all right !
In fa ...[text shortened]... morally right and what is inherently morally wrong !
..... or are you just pretending ?
I know what I'm talking about, or I'm just
pretending and got lucky on a bluff. I'll
leave that to your faith to decide.
Dr. Cribs