4 ms·

Everything you said applies to gang rape. Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theo

Everything you said applies to gang rape. Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals.

tscs37 10y ago
>Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. A subjective and indefensible view point, as far as I'm concerned. >If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals. As far as "social contract theorists" are concerned their system is right/just within it's own bounds, just as yours is only right/just within it's own bounds. There is no moral gold standard just as there is no universally just government. The Social Contract works because it defines that a majority of people can give consent for others to participate in it. This is purely subjective and is only an operating principle if the Social Contract exists. Once you step out of the Social Contract, it no longer applies and nobody can give consent you into participating. Now let's step back for a minute. What you're attempting here is saying that under the moral framework A, the actions taken with justification moral framework B are unjust. This is not correct. It's similar to taking a mathematical system that lacks addition and then complain that another system with addition does not work correctly because it has addition. (Reverse lack/has if you want, it's irrelevant) The "social contract theorists" justify their actions under the social contract which allows them to give consent via majority instead of unanimity, while you want a system that defines the consent to said contract via unanimity. Both options are fine but you cannot simply say the other side is wrong. edit: I might also add that even you continue to utilize a social contract; the contract of consent via unanimity. Which means that everyone agrees to respect the consent of everyone else. This is not a objective right that you somehow magically have, it's something you say you have. That only works as long as everyone agrees but if one person says "I don't want everyone to respect my consent" your social contract violates itself.

tscs37 10y ago

>Consent is personal and is a moral gold standard. A subjective and indefensible view point, as far as I'm concerned. >If there were any legitimacy to such decisions, social contract theorists wouldn't try to bend backwards to make them sound like they are consensuals. As far as "social contract theorists" are concerned their system is right/just within it's own bounds, just as yours is only right/just within it's own bounds. There is no moral gold standard just as there is no universally just government. The Social Contract works because it defines that a majority of people can give consent for others to participate in it. This is purely subjective and is only an operating principle if the Social Contract exists. Once you step out of the Social Contract, it no longer applies and nobody can give consent you into participating. Now let's step back for a minute. What you're attempting here is saying that under the moral framework A, the actions taken with justification moral framework B are unjust. This is not correct. It's similar to taking a mathematical system that lacks addition and then complain that another system with addition does not work correctly because it has addition. (Reverse lack/has if you want, it's irrelevant) The "social contract theorists" justify their actions under the social contract which allows them to give consent via majority instead of unanimity, while you want a system that defines the consent to said contract via unanimity. Both options are fine but you cannot simply say the other side is wrong. edit: I might also add that even you continue to utilize a social contract; the contract of consent via unanimity. Which means that everyone agrees to respect the consent of everyone else. This is not a objective right that you somehow magically have, it's something you say you have. That only works as long as everyone agrees but if one person says "I don't want everyone to respect my consent" your social contract violates itself.