Makaveli
Homoioi
Consent:
1, v: To permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive)
2, n: permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence
Philosophers have wrangled with the concept of consent for years, and indeed whole volumes have been devoted to the subject. To this end, I have attempted to encapsulate the theory of consent into a relatively short definition that is satisfactory in the majority of situations and circumstances, and is flexible to change. In my definition I incorporate elements of political and civil consent, to create a theory that applies to all areas of modern life.
I have defined consent as having two qualities: it is either revokable, or it is not revokable. To define both of them, I will first give several criteria to which the consent may be judged:
These are the main criterion for consent I have laid out. Consent can be legitimate if it is uninformed, and consent can be illegitimate if it is informed. Consent is always illegitimate if it is obtained under coercion if there is no recourse. Now, I will go into the main branches of my theory of consent, mainly if the consent has recourse, or does not have recourse.
Consent with recourse: This is consent that can be revoked, at any time, by the person or people that originally gave the consent; it should only be as difficult to revoke consent as it was to give it, and it should only be as difficult to revoke consent as the other party (i.e. the person, organization or government accepting the consent) wants to make it. I will give examples of various forms of consent with recourse based on my above defined criteria:
Consent without recourse: This is consent that cannot be revoked by any means by the person or people that gave it. This mostly applies to special instances, such as sex (you cannot 'un-sex' yourself). Consent without recourse, unlike consent with recourse, MUST meet several criteria: it must be informed, without coercion, for it to be considered legitimate.
Therefore, consent is either with recourse, where it must only be without coercion to be legitimate (informed or uninformed is unimportant, since the consent is always revokable), or consent is without recourse, where it MUST be informed and without recourse to be legitimate.
This is a theory in progress so if anyone has any suggestions or holes in my theory that they would like to point out, please do. I welcome any comments and constructive criticism to be had.
1, v: To permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive)
2, n: permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence
Philosophers have wrangled with the concept of consent for years, and indeed whole volumes have been devoted to the subject. To this end, I have attempted to encapsulate the theory of consent into a relatively short definition that is satisfactory in the majority of situations and circumstances, and is flexible to change. In my definition I incorporate elements of political and civil consent, to create a theory that applies to all areas of modern life.
I have defined consent as having two qualities: it is either revokable, or it is not revokable. To define both of them, I will first give several criteria to which the consent may be judged:
- Legitimate: The consent is given willingly, without coercion.
- Illegitimate: The consent is not given willingly, or is procured by means of coercion or other immoral or illegal practices. This consent is always wrong.
- Informed: The consent is given by a person, or a people, who are fully aware of what they are consenting to, to the degree that they know all relevant facts that the other party (the person, organization, or government they are consenting to) possesses.
- Uninformed: The consent is given by a person, or a people, who do not know all of the relevant facts possessed by the other party, or even any of them, and effectively do not know what they are consenting to.
- Without coercion: The consent is obtained without the use of coercion or any other illegal or immoral practice.
These are the main criterion for consent I have laid out. Consent can be legitimate if it is uninformed, and consent can be illegitimate if it is informed. Consent is always illegitimate if it is obtained under coercion if there is no recourse. Now, I will go into the main branches of my theory of consent, mainly if the consent has recourse, or does not have recourse.
Consent with recourse: This is consent that can be revoked, at any time, by the person or people that originally gave the consent; it should only be as difficult to revoke consent as it was to give it, and it should only be as difficult to revoke consent as the other party (i.e. the person, organization or government accepting the consent) wants to make it. I will give examples of various forms of consent with recourse based on my above defined criteria:
- Ex 1. A politician is elected to the Presidency of the United States based on lies and deception, and successfully cons the American people into voting for him/her. The people gave their consent thinking that this person would be a good president, but he/she in reality is not. When the people find out about this, they demand he/she be impeached. This is uninformed, legitimate consent without coercion, since it was obtained correctly, but left the citizens without any real conception of what they were consenting to.
- Ex 2. A politician gains power through a military coup and appoints himself head of government. This would be illegitimate consent, since it was obtained without consent of the people.
Consent without recourse: This is consent that cannot be revoked by any means by the person or people that gave it. This mostly applies to special instances, such as sex (you cannot 'un-sex' yourself). Consent without recourse, unlike consent with recourse, MUST meet several criteria: it must be informed, without coercion, for it to be considered legitimate.
- Ex. A woman consents to have sex with a stranger who she thinks is her husband, but in actuality is a strange man she has never met before. From all angles, it seems that she has legitimately consented to have sex with this person who she thought was her husband, because it was without coercion, but the stickler here is that it was uninformed consent. Since consent without recourse must be informed to be legitimate, this woman was raped because she was uninformed of who she was sleeping with, even though it was without coercion.
Therefore, consent is either with recourse, where it must only be without coercion to be legitimate (informed or uninformed is unimportant, since the consent is always revokable), or consent is without recourse, where it MUST be informed and without recourse to be legitimate.
This is a theory in progress so if anyone has any suggestions or holes in my theory that they would like to point out, please do. I welcome any comments and constructive criticism to be had.
