Trigger words: harm (7)
Indicator sentences: I'm not sure on your definition of harm?
Negotiation parts: If someone breaks their nose or pulls their shoulder out of socket you must do harm to their bodies and inflict more pain in order to restore them to better health. You must re-break a nose to make it heal straight. If you have a dying tooth that is causing pain a dentist must pull out your tooth causing harm for your benefit. But I'd say if you don't want this harm you aren't being rational. By the definition of physical injury these scenarios are harm. So harm is a term that relies on context to decide morality. It's not bad on it's own. But in that case, it's not really harm, since the net result is a benefit. You're consenting to the short-term pain only for the sake of the long-term gain. I guess my question would be, who gets to decide from a legal perspective what the relative weight of the pain and gain should be?
Trigger words: harm (4)
Indicator sentences: That´s a great point but it obviously depends on how you define "harm".
Negotiation parts: In my dictionary harm is defined as "Physical or psychological injury or damage" which is definitely domething i can consent to. For example a soldier can consent to have his arm cut off if there happens to be a terrible infection that would kill him otherwise.
Trigger words: harm (4)
Indicator sentences: Tell me if I am misinterpreting "harm" or informed consent here.
Negotiation parts: I can see many reasons why someone would consent to being harmed if the trade-off is more beneficial than the harm. My point being if benefit of harm [STA-CITE]> cost of harm (or amount of harm) then people will consent to it. [END-CITE]For example, the medical world has a lot of these (i.e getting a vaccine.) I and most people would consider getting a needle poked into your body something that harms me, but the benefits of being vaccinated out weigh the costs of the instance of pain. In that case, the person consenting obviously doesn't consider it "harm" or they wouldn't consent to it. The key point is that they are the only ones competent to judge what is harm to them. Basically, if you get more benefit (of whatever kind) then cost (also of whatever kind) I have a very hard time considering that "harm". You have to look at the big picture. I just wanted to clarify the definition of harm.
Trigger words: harm (2)
Indicator sentences: Your definition of "harm" excludes the possibility of consent, and your argument is a logical fallacy. Harm is defined as: [STA-CITE]>physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted. [END-CITE]There is the possibility for people to consent to harm. You are trying to change the definition of harm to support your argument.
Negotiation parts: The point I'm making is that the world doesn't get to define what is harmful, only the person consenting does. If they are sane, then by definition they won't consent to what they perceive (overall) as harm to themselves, and they are insane they by definition lack the capacity to consent. Now... can someone consent to something unpleasant in order to gain something they want? Of course. I'm saying they don't, prime facie, consider it harm, therefore, and that this is a consequence of them being the only ones that get to define harm for themselves. The dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm. That definition is irrelevant to the concept of consent. Only the consenter's definition matters for that purpose. [STA-CITE]>Of course. I'm saying they don't, prime facie, consider it harm, therefore, and that this is a consequence of them being the only ones that get to define harm for themselves. [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>The dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm. [END-CITE]Yes it does words have meaning, and we use common meaning when communicating with other people. That how we know what the other person is say. If you have a different definition of harm feel free to define it for me. With your definition of harm your statement has no value. [STA-CITE]>The dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm. That definition is irrelevant to the concept of consent. Only the consenter's definition matters for that purpose. [END-CITE]The definition of harm has nothing to do with consent. Consent: [STA-CITE]>permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. [END-CITE]Harm is physical injury, and consent is giving permission for something. So by definition of those two words I can give consent for someone to physically injure me. If you want to have an argument with definition of those two words that differ from the common use ones. Its best to define them up front. Everyone else will be using the common use definitions of those words. Or do you expect me to read your mind, and know what you are using as a definition of those words ? The problem is that we're speaking at different levels of jargon, not that the definitions are wrong, per se. Harm, in a metaethical sense, can't be viewed so narrowly. Harm, as defined by an individual, is something that a person considers to be a net negative outcome. In cases where one is speaking of probabilistic events, one must view this in an expected value sense. Consent, among people that discuss consent in the context of ethics, includes much more than simple permission. It is a choice, and usually a declaration, made without duress, with adequate information and sound mind, that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. Any other definition leads to too many ethical problems. This is why it's nonsensical to consider the possibility that someone can consent to harm, because consent is a declaration of non-harm, made with sound mind and adequate information. The only reason your statement is true is due to the fact that you built harm in to the definition of consent. If you subtract [STA-CITE]>that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. [END-CITE]You argument falls apart. There is no logical reason I can't consent to a net negative if I want to. So your argument is still a logical fallacy because you are redefining words with the sole reason is to fit your point. Try defining consent with out explicitly excluding harm in the definition. You point rest on the fact that you define consent as something that is not considered harmful. So you have no point at all. You definition are flawed, and don't make any statement at all. I don't think it is possible, actually. If you are of sound mind, not under duress, and adequately informed, you won't consent to something that you consider to be a net-negative (I.e. harmful) activity. If you want to get into the definitions of all of those other terms too, that's fine. I consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". Anything less has too many ethical contradictions. Regardless of what you think with that definition your argument if flawed. If you think its not possible to consent to a net negative you underestimate humans. People constantly consent to net negatives both informed, and willingly. Justification is often involved, but not required. Some people just stop caring, and they aren't concerned about outcomes. They know what they should and shouldn't do, and know its a net negative. Though they stop caring for themselves. They are in no way insane or uniformed. [STA-CITE]>I consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". Anything less has too many ethical contradictions. [END-CITE]Being of sound body, and mind. While adequately informed about the situation. Consents to be a participant, and was not coerced, forced , or otherwise pressured in to being involved. But, in that case a parent can still sacrifice themselves to save their child. They knowingly put themselves in harm and took harm(their own perceived harm) in order to prevent someone else's harm. By you logic that would make them insane. Harm, speaking in an ethical context, is whatever a person considers to be a net-negative outcome. There's no other way to look at it that doesn't lead to contradictions. But as I pointed out elsewhere, consent can't be made under duress, so your example isn't an instance of consent. By your definition of harm no person would ever make any decision to harm themselves. OP s example of suicide would be considered sane regardless of their reasons because their goal would be a perceived positive which would be to kill themselves. Your point on duress doesn't hold up.Just because there is stress doesn't mean someone can't make an informed decision. By your logic, any person who consents to go into a dangerous profession (such as police) cannot give consent in a stressful situation.
Trigger words: consent
Indicator sentences: The definition of harm has nothing to do with consent.
Negotiation parts: Consent: [STA-CITE]>permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. [END-CITE]Harm is physical injury, and consent is giving permission for something. So by definition of those two words I can give consent for someone to physically injure me. If you want to have an argument with definition of those two words that differ from the common use ones. Its best to define them up front. Everyone else will be using the common use definitions of those words. Or do you expect me to read your mind, and know what you are using as a definition of those words ? The problem is that we're speaking at different levels of jargon, not that the definitions are wrong, per se. Harm, in a metaethical sense, can't be viewed so narrowly. Harm, as defined by an individual, is something that a person considers to be a net negative outcome. In cases where one is speaking of probabilistic events, one must view this in an expected value sense. Consent, among people that discuss consent in the context of ethics, includes much more than simple permission. It is a choice, and usually a declaration, made without duress, with adequate information and sound mind, that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. Any other definition leads to too many ethical problems. This is why it's nonsensical to consider the possibility that someone can consent to harm, because consent is a declaration of non-harm, made with sound mind and adequate information. The only reason your statement is true is due to the fact that you built harm in to the definition of consent. If you subtract [STA-CITE]>that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. [END-CITE]You argument falls apart. There is no logical reason I can't consent to a net negative if I want to. So your argument is still a logical fallacy because you are redefining words with the sole reason is to fit your point. Try defining consent with out explicitly excluding harm in the definition. You point rest on the fact that you define consent as something that is not considered harmful. So you have no point at all. You definition are flawed, and don't make any statement at all. I don't think it is possible, actually. If you are of sound mind, not under duress, and adequately informed, you won't consent to something that you consider to be a net-negative (I.e. harmful) activity. If you want to get into the definitions of all of those other terms too, that's fine. I consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". Anything less has too many ethical contradictions. Regardless of what you think with that definition your argument if flawed. If you think its not possible to consent to a net negative you underestimate humans. People constantly consent to net negatives both informed, and willingly. Justification is often involved, but not required. Some people just stop caring, and they aren't concerned about outcomes. They know what they should and shouldn't do, and know its a net negative. Though they stop caring for themselves. They are in no way insane or uniformed. [STA-CITE]>I consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". Anything less has too many ethical contradictions. [END-CITE]Being of sound body, and mind. While adequately informed about the situation. Consents to be a participant, and was not coerced, forced , or otherwise pressured in to being involved. But, in that case a parent can still sacrifice themselves to save their child. They knowingly put themselves in harm and took harm(their own perceived harm) in order to prevent someone else's harm. By you logic that would make them insane. Harm, speaking in an ethical context, is whatever a person considers to be a net-negative outcome. There's no other way to look at it that doesn't lead to contradictions. But as I pointed out elsewhere, consent can't be made under duress, so your example isn't an instance of consent. By your definition of harm no person would ever make any decision to harm themselves. OP s example of suicide would be considered sane regardless of their reasons because their goal would be a perceived positive which would be to kill themselves. Your point on duress doesn't hold up.Just because there is stress doesn't mean someone can't make an informed decision. By your logic, any person who consents to go into a dangerous profession (such as police) cannot give consent in a stressful situation. Hmm.. I think my response got misfiled... would you say that you "consent" to be hit by a car if you fling yourself in front of it to save a child? I certainly wouldn't. That's a decision made under duress. Well yes they can consent. This is especially true if you have already made this decision up before the incident. Many parents will do everything they can to keep their children safe. It is in their better judgement to do so. Any stress or action against their child will result in them doing what they can to protect them. You also never addressed whether a professional in a stressful and dangerous job can give consent. Nor have you addressed op's original part about whether suicide can be considered a sane decision.
Trigger words: Harm
Indicator sentences: By your definition of harm no person would ever make any decision to harm themselves.
Trigger words: consent (10) consents consenting (3)
Indicator sentences: Taking the example of throwing yourself in front of a car to save a child, would you actually claim that you "consented" to be hit by the car? I certainly wouldn't... that would be stretching the definition of consent way past any kind of sense or usefulness.