3 ms·

They couldn't possibly consent to such when they have no idea what they are actually giving up. If someone who was previously able to see then went blind was gi

They couldn't possibly consent to such when they have no idea what they are actually giving up. If someone who was previously able to see then went blind was given the same choice, then they would have a basis from which to value sight and make an informed decision of consent; however, I don't think a person who has never seen before can possibly give valid consent to such an experiment.

philh 12y ago
That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish for the first time. And then they say, "actually, we'd like to see what happens if someone first tastes salmon several years after they first taste haddock", and they offer me a lot of money not to eat salmon for two years. Can I consent to that, even though I don't know what I'm giving up with salmon? What about if I started with no taste at all? (N.B. This isn't meant to be a knock-down argument against your position. I disagree with your position, and this is an argument against it, but it's not my true rejection. My true rejection is along the lines of "you have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to", but I don't care to get into that.)
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  "You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.
  - philh 12y ago
    A fair question. I try not to be dogmatic. Sometimes, bad decisions have externalities that justify forbidding them. I don't think that's the case in this particular instance. To briefly address your other examples- Minimum wage: in this case, I think the economic factors probably outweigh the freedom-of-contract principle. (I'm on the fence about what the economic factors actually support.) Age of consent: I think there's a meaningful sense in which children are not "people" for the purpose of entering contracts. EULAs and non-competes: I haven't spent much time thinking about this. Off the top of my head, I feel like these should be enforceable, but not as currently implemented. Like, suppose before I let you buy my software I get you to mail in a signed form saying that you have read the EULA and agree to its terms. Then I think I should be able to enforce the EULA against you.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
I must say, that argument is better than what I had expected anyone to come up with - but I'm still utterly unconvinced. For example, it would pretty much follow from your argument that we would have to force affected people to undergo surgery, as they could not possibly give informed consent to staying blind. You don't need first-hand experience with something in order to make an informed decision. Someone who has a haptic understanding of sharpness and an understanding of the finiteness of their life and of the general economical power of 10 m USD and possibly even an interest in philosophical questions surrounding perception [...] should very well be able to make an informed decision whether they think it's worth it for them. People also don't really know what it's like to live on a space station until they've been there, and yet astronauts very well are able to consent to being brought up there. Or for that matter, we allow people to never have that experience instead of forcing them to become astronauts, even though they can't value the experience (supposedly). Some decisions in life are difficult, but we absolutely do routinely allow people to make difficult decisions, and I think that's the right thing to do.

philh 12y ago

That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish for the first time. And then they say, "actually, we'd like to see what happens if someone first tastes salmon several years after they first taste haddock", and they offer me a lot of money not to eat salmon for two years. Can I consent to that, even though I don't know what I'm giving up with salmon? What about if I started with no taste at all? (N.B. This isn't meant to be a knock-down argument against your position. I disagree with your position, and this is an argument against it, but it's not my true rejection. My true rejection is along the lines of "you have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to", but I don't care to get into that.)

CocaKoala 12y ago
"You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.
- philh 12y ago
  A fair question. I try not to be dogmatic. Sometimes, bad decisions have externalities that justify forbidding them. I don't think that's the case in this particular instance. To briefly address your other examples- Minimum wage: in this case, I think the economic factors probably outweigh the freedom-of-contract principle. (I'm on the fence about what the economic factors actually support.) Age of consent: I think there's a meaningful sense in which children are not "people" for the purpose of entering contracts. EULAs and non-competes: I haven't spent much time thinking about this. Off the top of my head, I feel like these should be enforceable, but not as currently implemented. Like, suppose before I let you buy my software I get you to mail in a signed form saying that you have read the EULA and agree to its terms. Then I think I should be able to enforce the EULA against you.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

I must say, that argument is better than what I had expected anyone to come up with - but I'm still utterly unconvinced. For example, it would pretty much follow from your argument that we would have to force affected people to undergo surgery, as they could not possibly give informed consent to staying blind. You don't need first-hand experience with something in order to make an informed decision. Someone who has a haptic understanding of sharpness and an understanding of the finiteness of their life and of the general economical power of 10 m USD and possibly even an interest in philosophical questions surrounding perception [...] should very well be able to make an informed decision whether they think it's worth it for them. People also don't really know what it's like to live on a space station until they've been there, and yet astronauts very well are able to consent to being brought up there. Or for that matter, we allow people to never have that experience instead of forcing them to become astronauts, even though they can't value the experience (supposedly). Some decisions in life are difficult, but we absolutely do routinely allow people to make difficult decisions, and I think that's the right thing to do.