Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
I think that there can be more to the notion of consent than many conversations here delve into. Perhaps you agree.
Thanks for the invitation. 
To me, I apply four "standards" of consent, depending on what is being done. I'll briefly outline them here. Several years ago, I found myself unsatisfied with dealing with moral gray areas, so I set out to formally resolve the ones that apply to me. This is by no means the only valid approach, but it's the one I use.
At the first "level", generally for casual play (or sex) without gags, I'll look for someone who is clearly up to a "reasonable" standard of consent, talk to them along the way, avoid taking them too far, and stop if they say stop or otherwise give some indication that they don't want to proceed. That is to say, at this level, I would stick to someone who is clearly mature enough to understand what they're doing, doesn't give any appearance of being insane or imbalanced, and who isn't influenced to any obvious extent (i.e. having had a beer is fine, being drunk out of your mind isn't).
At the second "level", generally for non-casual play or with gags, I'll look for someone who is clearly of sound mind, able to consider the consequences and risks, uninfluenced by drugs, alcohol or sleep-deprivation, and not (to the best of my knowledge and perception) imbalanced or mentally ill. I'll discuss limits up front, and will make sure to explicitly cover anything I'm planning on doing while anyone is wearing a gag or otherwise unable to communicate, along with getting an idea of their probable responses. Stopping (or not) is covered in the discussion of limits, but if I get the impression anything is going further than I feel confident they're able to handle, or get the impression that anything is wrong, I'll time out, give them time to recover, and ask whether to go on.
At the third "level", for heavy/forced play or lifestyle submission, I'll look for someone who is clearly in a rational frame of mind without aforementioned undue influences, clearly mentally competent to consider their choices and the consequences, able to take responsibility for their choices, and should have enough life experience (including past experience with these things, if relevant) that they can have a reasonable idea of what they're getting themselves into based on prior experiences. Absent sufficient experience, I'll require one or more trial periods to incrementally build that experience. Limits and goals are discussed up front, and I'll make a serious effort to get inside their head before we start, as well as making sure they understand what is being agreed upon. Any mental illness must be of a nature I know doesn't impact the ability to make the decision, or I'll need assurances about that from a professional.
The "fourth" level, which I haven't used yet, is reserved for stuff that has permanent and significant consequences, including a literal definition of slavery (just with prior consent) and play that involves intent to- or significant risk of- causing permanent physical or mental harm. In such a case, I would discuss things with them clearly up front, in detail and at length; if they're in a hurry to do something permanent, I'm probably not their guy, sorry, much as I might like to (I've got desires too, you know, not all healthy). However, I would consider this a case which requires the equivalent of an Advance Health Directive, and as such, would require a mental health professional to assess that they are capable of giving informed consent, that they are actually doing so, that they have understood the choices they are making, and that there is no external force applied (e.g. coercion, my expectations) that influences them beyond the point where their decision will be their own, and said professional would have to attest to this, both for my own reasons and because that is valid documentation in a court of law up here.
That covers my different "standards" of consent.
They're probably not all that different from what most people have, but they're fairly explicit.
The fourth level is the way it is because I have certain interests that delve into areas that most would consider to be lacking the "safe" and "sane" aspects, and my remaining requirement is consent, which must bear the whole burden. I'm not about to start doing things that I can't begin to comprehend why someone would subject themselves to without making sure they know what they're getting into, etc.; and I'm not about to risk ending up in jail or on some "funny" TV show to fulfill fantasies, theirs or mine.
quote:
The issue (or non-issue) of insect consent may be pretty peripheral to most of our concerns about the matter but I'm wondering whether this might nevertheless be one worthwhile angle from which to approach the subject.
You could argue that it's no worse than other things we do to animals, but for me, that doesn't hold water. I don't harm animals (including insects) except in the interests of self-preservation. That means I don't swat a fly, I chase it out. It's where I've drawn my line: taking life, any life, without informed consent (euthanasia etc.), except where it is a matter of self-preservation, mine or others. In short, "live and let live", in formal terms.
I don't think anyone would care to argue that an insect has the capacity to consent to being killed for our pleasure, nor that it has the ability to communicate that consent in an unambigous manner. And if they aren't on the wrong side of the line, I don't know what is, coming from a biological sciences angle and seeing humans as just another lifeform; for me, for that reason, it would be impossible to accept it without also accepting that Ted Bundy had a valid orientation and was right to practice it. Which I don't, clearly.
It seems to me, being one who likes to pin things down and get to the substance/content of things (the truth, if you will), that the slippery slope phenomenon exists only because we choose to relate to concepts that were coined nearly at the dawn of our species' time and evolved (devolved?) from that, rather than dealing with objective reality and reason/logic. A gray area is intrinsically slippery.
When there is a gray area, as some might see things with insects, some interesting questions are raised.
For instance, and please (to everyone) do not reply in anything but hypothetical terms pertaining to the ethics of this (I don't want the thread shut down for ToS issues, like some of the others), why do many of us consider it wrong for a human to allow a canine or equine to initiate sexual contact and then reciprocate as long as they don't pull back (this is their standard of consent, after all)? What, specifically, differentiates that from people using insects, or (as appears popular among some Japanese) eels / squids? Or people who have a kink about stepping on bugs?
I used consensual non-violent vs non-consensual violent here to highlight the issue. Feel free to imagine and/or comment on other variations on the theme, again within the bounds of what's legal.
quote:
I don't see any beings but people as moral agents, personally.
I take it one step further. I don't see humans as moral agents, either.
Morals is about strategies of behavioural regulation. They evolve for a variety of different reasons, and strategies of varying complexity are employed, with various contents to those morals. For one thing, evolutionary pressures mean that a population that regulates its behaviour in a manner not destructive to the population at large over an extended period of time will, in general, be more successful, and, hence, selected for.
At the most basic level, this behavioural regulation is an emergent property of beings with central nervous systems beyond a few cells; even Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode of about 1mm in length, whose nervous system consists of exactly 302 neurons in a small-world network configuration, has the capacity to respond to external stimuli and respond in an aversive manner to certain stimuli, a kind of "zeroth stage" of moral development, if you will.
Add the ability to learn to recognize the circumstances that lead to the aversive stimuli, which I can't remember whether C. elegans has, then you have the first "stage" in Kohlberg's theory of moral development: negative reinforcement to eliminate undesired behaviour. All animals of any significant level of development has this.
Add the ability to figure out things that will improve your quality of life, and act accordingly to improve one's own quality of life, you have the second "stage" in that model: positive reinforcement to strengthen desired behaviour. Most animals we relate to on any level, including many that aren't considered social animals, have this capacity. Human children acquire it very early on.
Add a desire for social interaction, and to adjust behaviour to conform with the requirements imposed by a society/clique/group, and you have the third "stage" in that model: behaviour that will allow an individual to "belong" in a group. Most, maybe all, social animals have this. Cats and dogs are the examples we are most familiar with. Human children acquire this, too, very early on, and it is part of why teenagers do so many things to "belong" that may seem stupid to adults. Almost all humans "progress" beyond this "stage" at some point.
Add the ability to perceive group dynamics on a larger scale, and you have the fourth "stage" in that model: behaviour that supports a social structure through conformity. This stage may or may not be present in certain animals. It appears to be present in the other apes (humans are a species of ape, remember), and I suspect it is the case for dolphins and elephants, but the limits of communication put certain limits on the complexity that such morals may have. Similarly, the requirements involved may put limits on same. This "stage" is the last "conventional stage" in Kohlberg's morals. Most people stay at this "stage" until late in life, some remain throughout their lives. This is where laws become important, and (depending on exposure, etc.) dogmatism is a frequent consequence. You might say a lot of things said about law, like "if you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the time" and "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime", derive from this moral strategy.
Later in life, many (say, about half) "reach" what is the fifth "stage" in Kohlberg's model, where pragmatism sets in, and respect for other people's views and values as equal to one's own starts to set in. Laws and other rules/norms/conventions are seen as a social contract, a means to an end, not something to be followed dogmatically. It has been posited as the foundation of democracy.
A few individuals "reach" the sixth "stage" in the model, typically late in life, wherein universal principles start to form the basis for morality, and gray areas are reduced or eliminated by the strict principles involved. Kohlberg posited moral absolutism as a requirement; I do not agree with this. Either way, it is what makes some people commit crimes and civil disobedience to protest against unethical laws, which are rejected at this point. What some, not me, would call a "higher" moral calling takes precedence over such things as legal concerns, social contracts, norms, expectations and so forth.
There may be other strategies as well- I've identified one that may or may not be distinct from the sixth "stage"- but that's all they are: strategies of behavioural regulation.
Unless you embrace a deontic worldview, in which some divine authority sets forth an ultimate idea of "right" and "wrong", there is no basis for morals except what we choose, or (as is typically the case) let society choose for us. And for some, like me, who believe in a divine being, the subject of morals remains independent. If G*d parted the seas, gave me a nuclear bomb, and told me to go plant it in our capital city, I'd first ask why, possibly argue the point, then (obviously) have someone give me a look-over to see if I'd lost my marbles, and then go do it, but I wouldn't consider it ethical.
In short, humans and animals are equal with regards to ethics/morals as far as I'm concerned, and there is a biological basis for my claim.
quote:
I don't hold them to any ethical or moral standard. No matter what any non-human being does, I do not count it as immoral or unethical.
To me, an immoral act is one that goes against the morals of the being who does the act.
In that sense, I hold humans and other beings to the same standard, but I don't judge their moral content, only their conformity to it, and its internal consistency. I may complain that certain lines of reasoning, carried to their logical conclusion, conflict with other espoused values an individual has, but I do not consider my own moral content superior to theirs, nor my own moral strategy superior to theirs.
As such, I would consider Jack the Ripper to have been moral, in the sense that he conformed to his own morality, did what he thought to be right. I do not agree with his assessment of what was right, but I don't think he was "wrong" or "evil", because there is nothing that indicates, to me, that there is such a thing as "wrong" or "evil"; they are words, coined by humans, used to refer to things we find objectionable.
Of course, regardless of that, I will still act according to my own morals, which quite clearly permits me to shoot the SOB if he tries to kill any prostitute while I'm around.
Of course, this is glossing over the details and the scope of such a debate, but it's a rough sketch.
quote:
Nor do I see why these beings should be considered deserving of ethical treatment except insofar as treating non-human animals nicely can be good practice for doing the same with people, which I see as a campaign worthy of advancement on several fronts.
To me, there were two things that prompted my view: (a) emphathy, and (b) gray areas.
With regard to empathy, I have a strong sense of empathy with most beings, and I could find no definition that would exclude all those I don't have empathy for, while including all those I do have empathy for. Hence, there was no way emotionally to support the existence of a moral core (the concept that describes the difference between beings who are accorded protection by your morals, e.g. humans in your case, and beings who are not, e.g. jews in the case of Nazi Germany or animals in most people's worldview).
As for gray areas, there is the question of where to draw the line, if at all. For me, I could not find a place to draw it. One of the reasons I chose not to draw a line, even before I started eliminating the gray areas, is that I know that, throughout history, people have been very successful at moving that line in others.
For instance, medical research on adult apes is really no different from the same research on a five year old human child, except with regard to species, and even that argument is vague, as there will be (according to my biology teacher) greater genetic variation between individual humans than between humans and apes.
As another example, in the Third Wave experiment, that line was moved in school children by a teacher who started the experiment to show the students (when he could not find a way to explain) how people in Nazi Germany could come to believe and act as they did.
Of course, Nazi Germany and Unit 737 in Japan are examples in their own right, as are the Tuguskee experiments in our own time.
One thing that has since struck me, in reading medical research reports from animal research and research on humans, is that there is really no difference, except your own knowledge that one deals with humans and the other doesn't.
"The subjects were deprived of oxygen for 30, 20, 15, 10 and 5 minutes, respectively. Death occured, on average, after 9 minutes. Struggling and/or convulsions were evident up until point of death. There were no significant differences between the groups given anaesthesia (morphine I.V. 0.5mg/kg) and those not given anaesthesia."
"Subjects were euthanized at 6, 3, 2 and 1 hours, respectively, and brain tissue was rapidly excised and prepared in 1mm slices for study. Lesions in key brain regions were observed in all samples, but only fully developed after 3 hours."
"Subjects were homogenized, and chemical analysis performed, showing the expected reactions had occured."
Sounds very clinical, and detached, doesn't it?
Homogenized is, by the way, a nice way of saying they put the "subject" in a blender, or a "shaker", until they were a liquid with no distinguishing features, suitable for chemical analysis.
In short, this clinical detachment is possible because one has a distinction between "us" and "them" with regard to what life forms should be accorded what level of protection by our morals, and what treatment they are entitled to. Having spoken to a number of medical students, and seen some of them "gain" this detachment gradually, I can quite honestly say I would not want to be in their "them" group. Or, to paraphrase into the context of Unit 737, I would not want to be a log (yes, as in log of wood).
Further complicating the issue for me, is the bit about how one distinguishes. As I said, the line between human and ape is flimsy, for instance. Quite simply, I found no other way to resolve the matter decisively than to either adopt an "in-group" vs "out-group" stance (a moral core), like most people do (according to studies), or to reject the notion that there is a difference from an ethics point of view.
quote:
As to the cricket example, each of us who uses cars or busses kills thousands of insects on our windscreen and bumper as we motor across town on a summer evening, and we crush many more under our wheels. We know this, and we could re-arrange our lives so as to avoid this daily genocide if we felt these creatures warranted such consideration. But most of us don't act as though we think the lives of a thousand insects are more valuable than, say, quenching our momentary desire for a pint of Hagen Daz.
There is a line to be drawn, for sure.
But the line, to my mind, shouldn't be the nature of the beings involved, but rather what is done, and why.
For me, it's a matter of being able to live, as an extension of self-preservation. If I must worry about every insect I might step on along the way, and remain home to starve, I cannot live. Same for your car example. Similarly, if I spend my time doing nothing but worry, I cannot have a quality of life, and will eventually die from that.
My solution has been to extend what amount of consideration I can manage, and to all beings.
If a fly is annoying me, I chase it out of the house if I can. I'll only swat it if there is no way I can otherwise do the things I need to do to such a standard that I can survive. If I am going to the store, I will tend to keep an eye open for anyone I might bump into, step on, or otherwise harm/injure/kill accidentally, but I will not do so if I don't have the energy for it. If I'm running out of a burning building, I'll pick up someone who's fallen to help them out if I can do so and preserve my safety, or step on them if that's the only way to get out alive that I can see. In all these cases, human or not does not enter into it.
quote:
Most of us are responsible for the destruction of vast societies of insects killed and displaced from their natural homes by the construction of our own homes, stores, schools, roads, and kink clubs--not to mention the cultivation and harvesting of our food, even vegan food.
This goes even more directly to the matter of self-preservation; food, shelter and such are a prerequisite of survival. Humans are not built to survive outdoors, and require a significant quantity of food.
quote:
So we annihilate insects left and right at a furious pace throughout our lives, yet some people see it as morally wrong to, say, more or less force a certain wasp to sting a particular protruberance of a kink partner.
If you have no alternative to maintain a quality of life that you can live with, I don't have a problem with it, although I'd say that might be indicative of a kink that is compulsive enough, or pervasive enough, to bear dealing with by a mental health professional.
If you're not thinking about it, it's an accident / negligence, which happens all the time.
If it's just something you like to do, it is unconscienable to me, but I don't make your standards. I would, however, view it no differently than similarly prodding any other non-consenting partner to do something dangerous to them for the sake of those kinks.
quote:
It is wrong in virtue of the wasp, or cricket or whatever, not having consented, the story seems to go.
A wasp, cricket, or whatever, cannot give proper consent to such a thing, obviously, although the wasp can give some consent. That consent is no more valid, to my mind, than what is obtained by pressuring an impressionable girlfriend with "sleep with me, and without a condom, or I don't want anything more to do with you", however, and what is consented to is even more dangerous to the "partner".
quote:
Can someone explain how mass slaughter absent consent is okay, but, say, moving a cricket from one bush to another without consent is verboten, for you?
Moving it from one bush to another isn't a kink matter, as such. I could go into that if you like, but I thought this was about the role of consent in the lifestyle.
The rest of that point is addressed by the rest of my reply.
Note, by the way, that the door swings the other way, too. If you get consent, to an acceptable standard, from someone to hang them, I'm fine with that, as with the example about radiation poisoning (polonium would be fatal).
Either way, I'm not the police. I'm not going around checking on others. I try to do what I can in my immediate vincinity, and leave it at that; again, self-preservation, I cannot dedicate my life to this and live for any significant amount of time, nor have acceptable quality of life in that time.
Neither am I the thought police; I'm not here to tell people they can't do what they're doing. I sometimes raise a point, like with the one you quoted, but I'm otherwise happy to learn what I can from the guy who did the cricket-thing.
quote:
Thanks.
You're welcome.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
creepy crawly consent - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread