If you are a consent theorist, how do you account for the basis of the obligations of those of us who are capable to consent to those that are not? I mean, the rights of children, animals, the severly cognitively disabled--those who can't consent--are better handled by Singer's utilitarianism than by any Kantian theory that makes rationality and free will the basis of their rights and our obligations. A perfectly natural Kantain response is that them as can't consent, got no rights. Singer at least would have to say, well, consent may be important insofar as its lack affects the welfare we are supposed to maximize, but it's not the main thing; welfare is. So we have to consider the welfare of the less sentient.
Btw, my friend and old classmate from days of very much yore, Guyora Binder, a law prof at SUNY Buffalo, has a very interesting piece in the current issue of the Rutgers Law Review, called Framed!, in which he argues that the old chestnut objection that utilitarians are committed to framing the innocent if that maximizes utility, and by extension, discouting the well-being of the individual, is a mistake. He says it is based on a misunderstanding of what the _political_ project of the utilitarianisms was. The piece is too long, in classic law review style, and I don't know if I agree with it, but it is important. Given your interest in the topic, yous hould read it, tell me what you think.
--jks
>
>Actually you've not got it Justin.
>It is the unequal relationship. Singer does condone parents being
>legally able to kill their disabled offspring. That is an unequal
>relationship where the infant has no say. Here, the question of
>consent is equally disturbing. Animals do not have an equal
>relationship when it comes to human sexual aggression imposed upon
>them. What are they going to do, take it to court? If anything, I am
>for the underdog (pun intended) - that's consistent.
>Marta
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > In his early days, Lyndon Johnson is supposed to have directed his
>campaign
> > manager to call an opposing candidate a "pigfucker." "But Lyndon," said
>the
> > campaign manager. "That ain't true." "Ah know, and you know," said the
> > candidate, "But we'll make the sonofabitch _deny_ it."
> >
> > Marta's anti-Singer tactics here are redolent of similar approaches. I
>don't
> > think she cares about the "consent" of animals, she just wants to evoke
>the
> > gut disgust involved in an accusation of bestiality; and less because
>she
> > cares about animals, than because she has it for Singer, because she
>thinks
> > he has it in for the disabled. It's not exactly lofty argument.
> >
> > Sorry, Marta: I usually think your your work is excellent. I can even
> > respect your reading of Singer, although I think it wrong. But this is
> > cheap. --jks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Doug Henwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kelley Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >At 05:54 PM 4/2/01 -0800, Marta Russell forwarded:
> > > > >
> > > > >><http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >hey, it might actually be worthwhile to read the article since it
> > > > >really doesn't say much that is terribly absurd and it certainly
> > > > >doesn't do what this idiotic press release suggests.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing that out. I'd wondered if the press release was
>a
> > > > joke, but it didn't have an April 1 date on it.
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > >
> > >No joke. The press release was an announcement of the de-throning of
> > >Singer from his position at that particular animal group organization.
> > >Sheep, afterall, can't and don't give consent to humans to use them
> > >for sexual pleasure --
> > >so are you saying you condone having sex with animals? That would
> > >certainly give a new slant on farming.
> > >Marta
> >
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com