I really don’t see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don’t want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn’t start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don’t want to be shaken out of the trance where they’re constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.
Consent is also just a belief some people want to have. I’m not saying that it’s a bad belief to have, I’m in full support of it but that does NOT give me some divine right to impose the belief of it on others. We’re talking about wants, and that necessarily leads to a discussion on whose wants matter more. I am of the opinion that nobody’s wants are inherently (as in, outside human constructed narratives, cultures, norms) more valuable than those of others. I happen to value human well-being and respecting consent logically follows from that. However, because of exactly that I cannot impose consent on those who don’t believe in it. As such, I can only defend myself and others who agree with me against those who would try to impose their beliefs on me but I cannot go out and force them to obey me. This necessarily leads to the situation where I HAVE to accept certain results that may be undesirable in a realistic scenario. Including death in the hands of those that would oppress me. And that’s on me to do for myself - but that is also freedom for me to live according to my ideals without imposing them on others, Meaning, I accept that I can’t have the cake if I want to eat it. IT IS NOT EASY but it is what I have realistic power over.
An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.
Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.
As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It’s following a biological drive to survive. “Consent” remains a human construction. The rat isn’t arguing that it “should” not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being “oppressed” by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a “controlled population”, meaning as per you own words “The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.” And if you want to say that he hawk isn’t oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
I really don’t see how you draw that conclusion, except unless you consistently forget the wanting part where it suits you. A person really wants a pancake, they will support the system that gives them the pancake, even if the pancake is made from the flesh of newly born babies. They might be very unhappy about the babies but they want the pancake more than they don’t want the dead babies.
We can of course point out the boiling frogs thing. Oppressive systems gradually increase discomfort, but they stay within the realm of human capability of adaptation. The pancakes didn’t start off as babies, they started off as normal pancakes, then animals, then perhaps some human matter, then old people, then sick people, then just people, then babies. However here too you still operate within what people want. And most people don’t want to be shaken out of the trance where they’re constantly just comfortable enough to tolerate the (often abstract) negatives that enable their life. If they did, they would.
Ignoring the fact that society’s builders, such as you describe them, constructed society a priori, you’re falling prey to the fallacy of consent.
I commend you for trying but this dude seems just incapable of understanding fallacy.
Consent is also just a belief some people want to have. I’m not saying that it’s a bad belief to have, I’m in full support of it but that does NOT give me some divine right to impose the belief of it on others. We’re talking about wants, and that necessarily leads to a discussion on whose wants matter more. I am of the opinion that nobody’s wants are inherently (as in, outside human constructed narratives, cultures, norms) more valuable than those of others. I happen to value human well-being and respecting consent logically follows from that. However, because of exactly that I cannot impose consent on those who don’t believe in it. As such, I can only defend myself and others who agree with me against those who would try to impose their beliefs on me but I cannot go out and force them to obey me. This necessarily leads to the situation where I HAVE to accept certain results that may be undesirable in a realistic scenario. Including death in the hands of those that would oppress me. And that’s on me to do for myself - but that is also freedom for me to live according to my ideals without imposing them on others, Meaning, I accept that I can’t have the cake if I want to eat it. IT IS NOT EASY but it is what I have realistic power over.
An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.
Can you point out where in nature does consent exist independent of human minds? And can humans want anything independent of biological, societal or cultural factors?
Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.
As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.
The rat is neither consenting nor not consenting. It’s following a biological drive to survive. “Consent” remains a human construction. The rat isn’t arguing that it “should” not be consumed. And if we want the cycle of life to continue, some things must be consumed. Furthermore, if you want to say that the rat is displaying consent in nature, then you must also accept that it is being “oppressed” by the hawk. Meaning the rat is a “controlled population”, meaning as per you own words “The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.” And if you want to say that he hawk isn’t oppressing in the same way as a human oppresses another, then how is the notion of consent allowed for the rat? Consent requires agency.
noun: consent; plural noun: consents
noun: agency; plural noun: agencies
Simply restating a human-centric definition of consent doesn’t address the lack of consistency in your position.