Prompt: is consent the only standard form that matters in sexual contexts?
Some
Prompt: is consent the only standard form that matters in sexual contexts?
Some readings provided:
There are at least two related questions about sex and consent: (i) When has consent taken place? (ii) When is someone in a position to know whether or not consent has taken place?
This is obviously a very, very weighty set of questions. Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
If someone says No I dont want to do that or words to that effect it looks like weve got an obvious case where someone has not consented to sex, and the person theyre talking to is unreasonable if they still believe the person has consented to sex. But what if someone doesnt say No? Does that mean they have consented? Is the absence of No the presence of Yes?
It might help to think about how consent works in less controversial cases, and then come back to sex. Sometimes we consent to things without saying, out loud, Yes, I want this to do this. Count me in. This is because consent is something that happens first in the mind. It might or might not be communicated to others with words. The question of when consent exists and when it has been communicated, again, are two different questions.
But when consent is a measure of permission or of willingness to cooperate, there are other minds involved than the mind of the person who does or doesnt consent. Thats why we have to ask, When is someone else in a position to know whether or not you consent?
In non-sexual contexts, consent can be signaled in all kinds of non-verbal ways. If I said, Anybody want to play baseball? and you leave the room and come back with a bat and a glove, it looks like Im now in a position to know youre down to play baseball with me, even if you didnt say Me. I want to play baseball out loud. But notice that this is only because I asked. If I saw you walking down the street with a bat and a glove, I may be in a position to know that you want to, or have recently wanted to, play baseball with someone. Of course, Im hardly in a position to know that you want to play baseball with me obviously, I have no right to force you to, or to consider myself wronged if you wont play baseball with me.
Or, suppose weve talked it over, and Ive told you, Whenever you see me wearing my Cincinnati Reds cap, you know Im down to play baseball. If weve had that conversation, it seems like you may well be in a position to know that I consent to play baseball with you even if I havent said so out loud, when I walk up to you wearing my Reds cap. Though, again, you can take the absence of No for a Yes in this example only because we had the conversation where I told you that wearing the cap means I consent to playing baseball. If we havent had that conversation, it would obviously be unreasonable for you to assume I want to play baseball with you just because Im wearing the cap.
Now, it might be that even though Im not wearing my Reds cap, and we havent had any conversations about how Ill signal to you that I want to play baseball, and I didnt leave the room and come back with a bat and glove when you asked Anybody want to play baseball? that still consent to playing baseball. It might be that I consent and havent told you. Thats totally possible, because my consent happens first of all in my head, and nobodys in ther
e but me. But the question of when consent has occurred is not the only question were asking: were also asking When is somebody else in a position to know that Ive consented?And heres the kicker: unless theres been some background conversation when I said out loud Yes or When I do XYZ, it means Yes you shouldnt take the absence of No for the presence of Yes. If you want to be in a position to know if Ive consented, you need to ask for that consent, and leave me alone if I dont give it.
Notice, too, that when force gets involved, even if I am wearing my Reds cap, and we had a convo where I said If Im wearing my Reds cap, I want to play baseball with you, the standard is different. If you see me wearing my cap, and you want to play baseball, and I say, I know what I said, but I actually dont want to play baseball today . . . well, I dont think many folks think you now have a right to force me to play baseball.
Does the way we think about consent in these non-sexual contexts carry over to the way we should think about consent? Why not?
instructions:
1) The first thing you should do is identify your thesis. Your thesis is a one-sentence version of your answer to one of the questions above.
(2) The next thing you need to do is outline the argument for the thesis. State and number each of the premises. It should be perfectly clear and obvious what your argument is. It should be outlined in standard form like this:
Premise 1: If utilitarianism is true, we should oppress minorities if thats what maximizes happiness.
Premise 2: You shouldnt oppress minorities to maximize happiness.
Conclusion: Utilitarianism is false.
(3) Then, explain the logical relationship between your premises and the conclusion. Ask yourself, Is it possible for someone to agree with my premises but disagree with my conclusion? If not, why not? If so, what premise can I add that would fill the logical gap or make the hidden assumption clear? Would the truth of your premises guarantee that you conclusion is also true? If not, would the truth of your premises show that your conclusion is very likely to be true? (These questions are about whether your argument is a deductive or inductive argument.)
(4) Next, explain each of your premises in turn. Do your premises contain words or ideas that are not clear? Explain them. If your premises are controversial (i.e. If theyre not obvious to common sense), give an argument for them. Clearly identify the premises of that argument. Given that this is a short paper, you probably want to stick to premises that are as non-controversial as possible. Or, try to come up with an argument with only one really controversial premise, and concentrate your efforts there.
(5) Finally, present an objection to your thesis, OR an objection to one of your premises, OR an opposing position. The objection should come from an outside source: either from the assigned reading or from a source you find on your own. Explain why the objection poses a problem for your thesis/premises or why the opposing position is at least plausible. Then, give a brief defense of your thesis/premises OR briefly explain why we should prefer your position to the opposing position. Make sure that this defense adds something to your overall argument. Dont defend your thesis or premises by just stating them over again.
This paper should be no less than 5 and no more than 6 pages long.
Share this:
FacebookX