Forgive my insensitivity, but I don't really give a flying F%$@ if produce dies because some whacko wants to hump it. Heck I don't even care if someone needs to go the produce aisle to get there jollies. Where as it may be wierd I don't see it as posing a health risk to anyone except for the individual participating in it.
"When I take my cat to the vet, I don't concern myself about whether or not the cat can "give consent." I doubt that the cat would consent to getting his shots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that."
Actually most normal people would find the fact that you care enough to take your cat to the vet as very caring. I'm sure most kids don't want to take cough syrup when their sick but loving parents will make sure their kids do the right thing.
What that has to do with two consenting adults who participate in "deviant" private behaviour that may or may not be harmful to THEMSELVES is beyond me.
So why is it that a freedom loving society ought to regulate the actions of willing participants in private acts that do not infringe upon the rights of others?
"A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?"
If a dog did this to someone I knew and they started enjoying it. I'd tell them to go get a room or to go get help. But then again I find it rather silly to assume that a dog acting on instincts and hormones to actually be willing to give conscious consent on the same level that humans do. Do you think that homosexuals don't act like humans or are in human and are incapable of courting one another and interacting and giving sexual consent in the same manner as hetero sexual couples. Or do you honestly believe that homosexuals run around humping each others legs to incite mating??? Awwwhhh hell I know a bunch of straight kids that act that way during spring break.
"A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?"
This is a rather absurd scenario. I must wonder is a dead person actually capable of giving consent? Is a childs consent legally binding? No!
Parents giving consent to sell a dead corpse to private individuals for their own sexual gratification?!?!?
How on earth you managed to extrapolate such a scenario from two active, living, adult members of society who may wish to enagae in sex with each other is beyond me?!?!
Can we try a more reasonable discussion???
A debate about principles may not always seem reasonable. But it can still be a principled debate. Reductio ad absurdum, or proof by contradiction, is well-accepted and often used. My approach is similar.
The "consenting adults" argument is not self-evident. It is the current stage of an debate along the following lines:
Libertine: You shouldn't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. It doesn't hurt anyone.Now let's examine this matter of "giving consent" more closely. As seen in the beginning stages of the argument above, the libertine's underlying concern was not about "consent" but that no one get hurt. But since some people like getting hurt, the libertine had to pull a "bait and switch." All of a sudden the "no one gets hurt" issue disappears, and is replaced without explanation by the "consent" issue.Moralist: What about rape or murder in the privacy of one's own bedroom?
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as none of the parties involved get hurt.
Moralist: What about sadomasochism?
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care even if someone gets hurt as long as all parties involved give their consent.
Moralist: What if a 14 year old child wants to have sex with an adult? In the privacy of the bedroom, of course...
Libertine: No, I meant, you shouldn't care as long as the parties involved all consent to it, and are capable of giving consent. A child is incapable of giving consent.
Moralist: What about bestiality?
Libertine: Animals are incapable of giving consent.
But if "giving consent" and "capable of giving consent" are the real issues in bestiality, it would seem that we now have the following: A man cannot use a calf for sexual gratification because he "needs consent" and the calf is "incapable of giving consent." But this man can raise the calf in confinement, breed it with any bull he chooses, and finally kill, butcher and eat it. Whatever happened to "consent"? How is it that he "needs consent" for something that hardly more than inconveniences the calf, but not for confining, killing and eating it?
At least we try to be a little more consistent when it comes to children. If parents use their power to do something that everyone else thinks is injurious to the child, the state steps in. And most are in agreement that a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is injurious to the child (although this belief is founded more in moralism than in utilitarianism). So, we allow parents to impose upon the child "good things" like "eat your vegetables," "brush your teeth," "go to your room," all without needing the child's consent or ability to give consent. But we don't allow the parents to give surrogate consent to "bad things" even if the child wants them.
But consider the case of necrophilia. A dead body is no longer a person that can suffer or be injured. This situation is not meant to be an "extrapolation" of the situation of two homosexuals; it is the result of carrying the "capable of giving consent" argument to an extreme. If, through a "last will and testament" of the deceased, or the conscious decision of the parents in the case of a child, consent has been legally obtained, is it now okay for the necrophile to do whatever he wants in the privacy of his bedroom? It isn't hurting you or anyone else!
I contend that the "consent" argument is an huge red herring. If "consent" is the gold standard for judging someone's behavior, then we would be forced to tolerate the necrophile. We would also be forced to either become vegetarians or permit bestiality.
But there are probably some issues I have overlooked. I'm sure someone will show me how the "consenting adults" argument is consistent with prohibiting bestiality or necrophilia, while at the same time it is consistent with allowing me to enjoy my steak and will my body to science.