Tuesday, July 01, 2008

• Why Consent is Overrated

  I've had this post jotted down for months, so might as well get it out. In trying to navigate the moral quandaries of our day--torture of enemy combatants, abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, gay marriage, racial inequalities, etc., many of us wish that there was one guiding principle that we could apply to solve our dilemmas. For many 20-somethings, that moral principle has become "consent". I loosely define it as follows:

  As long as the people involved in a certain activity agree to be involved, they have every right to do so without governmental or religious interference. Some may also add the corollary that as long as no one is physically harmed, consent is enough.

  Thus, as long as I'm not hurting anyone, and they want to participate, I can do WHATEVER I want, WHENEVER I want. It's ultimate democracy, allowing me to govern the Republic of Me as I see fit. And if my friends are making poor choices, well, as long as they are happy and aren't being forced to make those choices, best of luck to them. Taken one step farther, consent can also be seen as holding Libertarian political beliefs. Sounds great in theory, right?

  But I disagree with the respect given to consent as a moral principle. There are too many loopholes in the idea. For example:

  Consent places the rights of the individual above the rights of the group.

  If consent is the guiding principle, than the individual's wishes are placed above that of the majority, even if the majority has voted in one direction. We see this in our court system, as special cases involving individuals overturn laws that serve the majority. Instead of a tyranny of the majority, we now have a Balkanized model in which we all are split into different groups based on our principles. Rather than try to forge consensus, we separate ourselves into groups that hate one another. Consent itself can be a tool of rebellion, as "one nation" becomes North and South, big-city vs. small-town, black vs. white vs. Latino vs. Asian as each block refuses to consent unless their every requirement is satisfied.

  Worse, consent can be used as a cover for hate groups. For example, what would happen if, say, the KKK would conspire to take over a small town in Kansas? Slowly the town would become filled with KKK members. But what about those who would not consent? When consent becomes the law of the land, those who do not consent must be removed so that all who are left will consent. The non-consenters would be bullied in a thousand ways until they left. And once all the town was KKK, would they have the right to do and believe whatever they wanted? To educate their kids in hate? According to the principles of consent, yes, they would, because no one would be left to disagree. Think it would never happen? That's exactly what happened in the South after the Civil War, as reform-minded folk were bullied and hung until there were not enough people left to speak up for the former slaves.

  Consent places short-term reward in front of long-term stability.

  Suppose that I gain pleasure by throwing myself off the roof of my house and enjoying a few moments of flight before slamming onto the ground below. A rational government or neighbor would realize by my broken bones that I am crazy, and try to stop me from continuing this self-destruction. Yet consent would say that my rights to choose are more important than whether I am truly sane or whether I am causing pain and suffering to my neighbors who must watch me destroy myself. However, after I realize that I'm destroying myself, it may be too late, as I may die of my injuries, or become a burden on the state/my family because of my high medical bills.

  Or, consider situations where the entity who has the most to lose is voiceless. What about wetlands which are being cut down and exploited by a tribe or business, but have no voice with which to defend themselves? Or a person in a coma where the plug is about to be pulled, or a fetus? Can we really say that everyone involved has consented, when the entity that has the most to lose was never heard from? Just because one group advocates for its "rights" does not mean that that group deserves those rights. The cost to society from that one group getting more power may be too costly.

  Consent implictly assumes rationality on the part of the decision-makers and as such does not allow people to change afterward.

  Suppose that I decide to marry someone who I consider to be loving, kind, and honorable. Everyone else warns me that she is not to be trusted, but I insist on marrying her. After our marriage, she turns out to be an emotionally and psychologically abusive mistress. Because I was radically in love for 8 months and was momentarily bereft of reason, does that give her the right to torture me around for the rest of my life? Are other right to tell me "You married her, so put up with it?" Most of you would tell me yes...but what if the tables were turned, and it was a woman suffering from domestic violence? You see how quickly consent can lose its appeal?

  Sure, people should live up to their word, and keep agreements they signed. But what if those agreements were signed when the person was not emotionally or physically healthy? Or the person was manipulated into agreement? I'm not saying seduction is as bad as rape...but seduction isn't a victimless crime, either. Consent should not be a moral principle when it's clear the person is being irrational. So, for example, if the guy/girl is tipsy and still getting over a bad break-up, is it ok to sleep with him/her, just because s/he was too mentally confused to say "no"? The law of the land may say it's not a crime per se, but it sure doesn't seem fair to me. But then, how do we define rationality? That's another question for another day.

  Consent rewards manipulation and emotional trickery.

  Have you ever noticed that the people advocating for less government and more individual freedom are often the best orators? Their ability to verbally manipulate crowds and their belief in consent are not a coincidence. Consent means that the power now belongs to the most charismatic person who is able to convince large numbers of people. It doesn't mean that the best ideas succeed. Consent means that the ideas who have the most convincing proponent or the most highly connected lobbyists will succeed. Beware of cunning people who seem to be making the process more fair, but are in actuality changing the rules of the game to fit their strengths. Sure, it's not physical intimidation anymore...but verbal and emotional intimidation and trickery are in some ways WORSE than physical intimidation. At least with physical intimidation, one knows what is happening!

  The manipulative consent issue is something I myself have struggled with for years. I did speech team in college, and also have written blogs for years. So it's very tempting to bend the facts for the sake of getting my point across or to get other people to agree with me. I can get away with it most of the time. But consent itself is not enough for me; I want to believe that I earn the respect and agreement I get. Thus, instead of just using consent as a benchmark, I ask myself if a "rational stranger" would consider my actions fair. Is it fair to pretend to be more interesting than I really am on a date? Is it fair to overstate my career accomplishments during an introduction just to make sure the person does not underestimate me? Is it fair to talk people into going to my favorite restaurant just because I can? I'm not saying the answer to all 3 questions is no, but I am saying it's a good idea to ask yourselves those questions.

  Conclusion: The next time someone tries to tell you that their position is right just because "no one's getting hurt" or "everyone wants to be there", bring up some of these points. Don't let them get away with weak substitutes for true morality and justice. Consent is a good start, but by itself, it truly is overrated.

  • 4:31 PM
  • 129 views
  • 32 eprops
  • 22 comments