And yeah, I know it's not Sunday. I'm late.

Turkey kinda stole my thunder with his brain thread anyway.

Everything depends on the situation. Sexually? Always yes. Consent needed.

Medically? Not always. I believe physicians should always save the life, even if it means doing something they may not consent to.

Pretty much this.

EDIT: Wait, not really. I didn't think this through lol

I don't think doctors should always save someone's life. Sometimes, people want to voluntarily end their own life (Like if they have some horrendous terminal illness), and it's worse to put them through the suffering than prolong it just so you can say you kept them alive, "As long as you could."

No.

With this logic a murderer can simply proclaim he doesn't consent to being arrested.

Medically? Not always. I believe physicians should always save the life, even if it means doing something they may not consent to.

Ridiculous. Medically is when consent is most important.

OT: Of course it is.

No.

With this logic a murderer can simply proclaim he doesn't consent to being arrested.

When you break someone else's consent, you have the possibility of forfeiting yours, depending on what you did.

Quote from: Winy on October 12, 2015, 03:50:45 PM

In any circumstance? Or in a certain situation?

Like, if somebody gets hit by a car, and I'm an EMT, I'm going to try to save them.

Certain situations. If you wanna die, you wanna die--I think that should be respected.

I agree with that when it comes to terminal illnesses and shit like that.

Quote from: Ronnie Pickering on October 12, 2015, 03:50:08 PM

No.

With this logic a murderer can simply proclaim he doesn't consent to being arrested.

When you break someone else's consent, you have the possibility of forfeiting yours, depending on what you did.

But that's not what the OP specified. If I'm imposing an action on you for murdering someone then clearly I'm doing so without your consent.

I would.

I would do everything I could to stop them.

I would.

Well, if I went to hell for helping to save somebody close to me, who watches my back as I watch theirs, then by all means I'd do it.

The funny thing about this, to me, is that you're going to argue that it would be wrong. When the irony here is, is that the world really doesn't give a shit if it's wrong. And nor do people. This is why I don't enjoy taking such a hardline stance on morals. Because they're so easily stepped over and broken. And the line can blur so god damn easy.

But, here's my question to you. If I'm morally wrong on a call like that, then what would you do, if anything, to stop me?

Let's assume that in five minutes, I'm going to go out and do that to somebody. And you have that knowledge. What do you do?

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 12, 2015, 04:12:49 PM

But, here's my question to you. If I'm morally wrong on a call like that, then what would you do, if anything, to stop me?

Let's assume that in five minutes, I'm going to go out and do that to somebody. And you have that knowledge. What do you do?

Um, nothing? I don't know where you live. If you were going to go out and murder someone, I couldn't do anything.

Then you'd be morally wrong for doing nothing.

Would you agree, that if you happened on somebody committing something morally wrong, that you'd be just as equally morally wrong for letting such a thing continue, if you had the abilitiy to stop it?

If you say yes, then you'd be morally wrong for letting me go out to do that to somebody. And you can't bring up the excuse of not knowing where I live, because you have an admin on this site who knows everybody's IP addresses.

You could then call the american police, and ask to be routed to the canadian police to report a crime in progress based off the IP address you have which pins the location I live in perfectly. I've actually done this before. It's not hard. There are actually several ways you could do something in a scenario like this were it a real thing.

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 12, 2015, 03:46:18 PM

Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 12, 2015, 03:36:48 PM

Everything depends on the situation. Sexually? Always yes. Consent needed.

Medically? Not always. I believe physicians should always save the life, even if it means doing something they may not consent to.

I support an individual's right to a DNR order.

A DNR is different. If an EMT found someone unconscious, and didn't have instructions, save the life

EMT's aren't  physicians.

Here's another example, two, actually, primarily for Class, if we're going to take a hardline stance on any breach of consent being morally wrong.

Take somebody who is suicidally depressed. It's a proven fact that somebody who is suicidally depressed enough to kill themselves has an altered state of mind that's not functioning correctly anymore, which overrides their survival instinct entirely.

You would probably argue that it would be morally wrong to stop somebody from committing suicide since its a breach of their consent, obviously. But what if their mind isn't functioning correctly anymore? What do you categorize that as, then? Letting somebody who is arguably sick give into that "disease" and altered state of mind doesn't seem right. Because their judgement is warped.

And secondly, if we're to take an absolute stance on this, let me show you how ridiculous this can go.

Right now I could say that I'm paying taxes against my consent because I don't want to pay taxes. I don't like paying taxes.

You yourself, could say, "Hey, I don't like my fucking job, I don't want to go, this is a breach of consent."

Let's go even further. How about in social situations? When you "force" yourself to be polite to somebody when you don't like them, couldn't that be called a breach of consent? Because you're being forced to keep what you really think about them in your head.

How about right now? I could say that you not agreeing with me would be a breach of my consent because I'd like you to agree with me but you're not.

So, in those four cases, suddenly there's a lot of evil people wandering around. But you'd be called crazy if you took it that far. If you took such a hardline stance on it. And it all still amounts to nothing.

So, I don't think a hardline stance works. You have to draw a line somewhere between when a breach of consent is warrented, and it isn't.

Otherwise it becomes fucking ridiculous.

This question depends on how we evaluate pain and suffering. Some people view it as inherently bad while others will view it as something that is on a number line, and thus can be cancelled by positives.

From my usual nihilistic perspective there is no objective morality so the concept is null. But considering the concept's usefulness for a functioning society, consent can most certainly be broken. In fact, society is founded on a breaking of consent, considering we are forced into life, forced into maturity, and forced into a life that most certainly entails suffering.