When, if ever, can acts involving only consenting adults be morally wrong?

Note: This essay was written for the John Locke Essay Competition 2022

Consent is a matter of yes or no. The answer to consent is definite. The implications of that answer, the paths forward that they are the gate to, are to be followed with integrity. These paths, these tracts to the future, are parallel and never meet, they never intersect, for a yes does not mean no, a no does not mean yes. The rules of consent are clear, but the decency to adhere to rules and respect another’s decision, sometimes, is not prioritised. Instead, selfishness reigns leading to the world deceiving itself repeatedly. But how exactly does this deception take place?

Well, it is to be discussed, but in short - consent, even if it is the morally correct thing to submit to, covers only the topic that has materialised to be a subject of agreement or disagreement. There may also be further intentions inhumed under a furtive mien, and it is this quality of being duplicitous that is the primary reason for debauching the sanctity of consent.

Time, Reality, and Consent

Before progressing to the main thesis statement, there should be some further understanding of the concept of consent and of why it is required, not simply morally correct.

To begin, why is consent so important in this world? Why is it so ubiquitous? Perhaps, because it is related to our reality and the nature of humanity and progression. Reality’s progression could be thought of as a product of time. Time is always moving forward as per the western thought, and reality is entrained into its inexorable and sweeping current. But, reality in the abstract, as a state, as the invisible space that hosts existence, as what we perceive, as what lets us perceive through the senses, can not be changed by time, for time is arguably a human creation. Time seems to be an interpretation of reality. Thus, its categorisation represents the progression of reality. Time simply makes it easier to organise the otherwise disordered chaos of life and living. Thus, time is an instrument, and the concept of time is more a case of reality and its advancing.

But what about reality in the temporal sense? A reality that relates to the current state of everything physical and material in this world that has a consequence and may possibly bear the burden of a consequence. That reality would mean that time (as a man-made instrument) could have an effect on the physical realm, since so many things are ordered to take place and be carried out according to the progression of that selfsame and steady tick of time.

But, then again, even if the physical action takes place corresponding to time, is it not that material event of change that is leading to a broader change and not time? Some actions do not even need to correspond to time to take place yet still have impacts on the world, the greatest example probably being the acts of nature. The clouds do not wait for some standard amount of time before raining down upon fields and flooding them. For example, an earthquake does not wait for a certain time to shake the ground, and the subsequent tsunami does not wait for a certain time to rise to terrifying heights.

Physical action, regardless of its agent being a human, an animal, or nature, will have an effect on temporal realities and that is progression.

Actions can also lead to regression, but that is undesirable since that undermines previous work done to tread a path further. Positive change is always preferred and is often the common objective. Consent, thereby, seems important, for in order to achieve greater goals, people must work together. Why? For, a single person’s influence and capabilities will never amount to the effect of collective effort. And to facilitate that, consent is required.

But not every action is the product of an idealistic mindset. In the banalities of life, not all actions have agreeable consequences. But that does not stop the strain of causality and consequence from persisting through that meagre sequence of events. Thus, even if it does not change the world, every consensual action contributes in some way to regression or progression, even if only present in the life of an individual. Therefore, consent is and always will be important.

Understanding the Concept

There are myriad situations with completely different circumstances and the invariable presence of consent. It is involved with the question of coitus, with business deals, with the spending of somebody else’s money, with the selling of somebody else’s possession, with taking somebody else’s picture: the possible situations are endless.

So when can such a situation go wrong? When the theoretically inviolable rules of consent are broken. How could they be broken? By acting on volition and engaging in an activity that was objected to by the decision-maker. Taking a decision on somebody else’s behalf knowing that it affects them, possibly in a negative way is also morally wrong and even though the question of consent was not proffered, it still undermines the purpose of consent, which is to let the stakeholder make a decision on their own, postulating that only the stakeholder would know what is best for them. However, neither of the examples given involve consenting adults. The examples did involve morally wrong acts, but the acts were judged to be wrong based on the laws of consent. So, could there be a case where an act was correct according to the laws of consent, but was still morally wrong?

Yes, it is possible based on the fact that the previous statement of the stakeholder knowing what is best for them, is a postulation and not a fact.

Chthonic Intentions

In situations where acts between two consenting adults are morally wrong, would it be the fault of the people involved or the fault of the system they followed? It would be both, for there can generally be two situations where such a case happens. One is that there is not enough information. Another is when information is omitted. However, if the dearth of information was due to natural reasons, then it cannot be judged to be morally wrong. There must be some human action that led to the paucity, for that is when the concept of morality enters. That eliminates the former situation of there not being enough information for it cannot be anybody’s fault. That means at the root cause of morally wrong acts involving adults, there is deception. There must be something that one stakeholder knows that another does not. A decision maker acts on whatever information they have and then they proceed to make a final ruling that aims to benefit them in some way. But if there is no information, That is what can make an act with two consenting adults morally wrong, because for one of the adults, they are submitting to the unknown, and within the unknown many bad things can befall a fate.

The capacity for the omission of potentially vital information in situations involving consent highlights a weakness about the laws of consent. What are the laws of consent? A major aspect to consent in this world is age, however the question to this entire inquiry already rules out that aspect by specifying it to regard adults. That, then leaves the intrinsic nature of consent which is an arrangement to host an agreement or a disagreement where once the decision is made it must be held as sacrosanct. That is plausible. For, ultimately, it is a matter of ‘yes’ or ‘no’. That is why the laws, a consequence of the nature of consent, are superficial. Because words are articulated thought, and not every thought is uttered. Some simply lie beneath but are the main cause for action, as chthonic intentions.

The superficiality of consent points out another way such acts can take place and that is through external forces such as inebriation or consuming substances that disorients the functioning capabilities of the mind.

It also points out that consent assumes that all of those involved are equal–that they are independent and think independently. But, unfortunately that is not always the case. In many relationships there are power dynamics where one individual can exert and impose such power on the other that they are essentially forced to submit and consent. That is undoubtedly morally wrong, for that person did not consent for themselves, they did not consent because they wanted to, but because they had too as a result of the machinations of the individual who is perceived to be more powerful.

Informed Consent

It is generally known that there is the exploitation of the uneducated and illiterate by fabricating consent, which can lead to forced labour. That the aforementioned influence of power dynamics on consent can lead to prostitution. The book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman talks about how people are manipulated by the mass media to consent to actions that primarily benefit the upper classes of people who control their country, in the case of the book being the USA.

How could such morally wrong acts be stopped?

The aforementioned definition of consent speaks only of its intrinsic nature. So, to augment that, one should add the aspect of information. For, information is paramount in situations of consent, because only then can an informed decision be made. Matters of life span far beyond psychic realms, and into the abyss. Attempting to make an accurate decision with circumstances that are heavily obscured to one’s understanding is almost futile. And trying to probe into circumstances whose true nature, implications, and consequences are absolutely unknown is completely fruitless. Moreover, it is possible that this decision made, predicated on false, skewed, or absent notions will serve to be of detriment to the decision maker.

Therefore, the primitive definition of consent should be augmented to the definition of informed consent, which is a term of medical ethics, wherein ‘a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention’ and based on that the patient consents or does not consent. Even if it is a medical term, it still applies to all situations of consent. Otherwise, it is unfair and stakeholders may be harmed since the omission of information means that there are underlying intentions that have not manifested into the terms of the consensual agreement which means that there is deception in the process which is morally wrong.

Thus, there would have to be far more equity in the general definitions and understandings, for there to be no morally wrong acts involving consenting adults.

An Unfortunate Realisation

A note before the conclusion, is that the foundations of consent that have been delineated so far are true to some extent, however they are far too systematic and robotic in a way. Human behaviour is erratic and may not follow such stringent rules. The concepts of consent elucidated upon exist in the hopeful world of theory.

Conclusion

The human psyche is an enigma. That is the reason for why sciences such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology still exist and progress is still being made in them. It is also the reason why philosophy and philosophers still exist for the human condition remains elusive. Informed consent should be adhered to and followed, but it is an ideal. Rapacity often comes ahead of rectitude, and it is only in such a world where acts between two consenting adults can be morally wrong.

This world exists, we live in it, and such acts take place.

Citation

Chomsky, Noam, Herman, Edward S., Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, 1st ed., Pantheon Books, 1988

Shah, Parth, et al. “Informed Consent.” National Library of Medicine, 14 June 2021, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/. Accessed June 30 2022

Image Credit: https://www.acesdv.org/what-is-consent/