WMN: t3_1ntobs_t1_ccma5pl

[TITLE]

I don't buy the argument that "you can't consent to being harmed." CMV.

[arrant_pedantry]

My mom was making an argument that (as I understand it) goes something like this: 1. Sane people do not want to be harmed. 2. Therefore, sane people will not consent to harm. 3. Therefore, by definition, someone who consents to harm is not competent to give consent. 3. Therefore, harm is always nonconsensual because even if the person *thinks* they are consenting, they are by definition incompetent to consent, because they are agreeing to be harmed. (note: this assumes that consent means *informed* consent - we both agree that if you don't know what you're consenting to, that the consent is meaningless in the first place) She extended this all the way out to suicide: if you attempt suicide, you are by definition mentally incompetent to make life-or-death decisions, because you're suicidal. My responses to this: 1. This is circular reasoning and therefore completely unconvincing to me because I don't buy into the premise (which is also the conclusion). 2. From a more pragmatic/legislative perspective, who gets to decide what "harm" is? Is it physical injury? X level of pain? Visible marks? Permanent injury? What if I'm really into BDSM and the physical pain of getting spanked (or whatever) produces such a great mental benefit that the overall effect is positive? Would this fall under "you're not really consenting to harm in that case"? Again, how would you measure or judge this? 3. Excluding people who think the harm will ultimately be a net benefit (the BDSM scenario), maybe there is no *rational* reason from a purely self-interested perspective to consent to harm, but human beings do all kinds of things for irrational reasons and yet we don't consider that to invalidate their consent. Why is this different? Also as a side note, the fact that people who try and fail to commit suicide often claim that they're glad they failed proves nothing. Regret after the fact does not prove that you didn't consent at the time. Second side note: I know Locke has this whole argument about how you do not have the moral authority to end your life because it's essentially just yours on lease from God and you don't have the authority to total the Almighty's car. So that's nice from a religious perspective, but I'm not religious so it isn't particularly convincing to me. So...change my view? Is there a better argument that I'm not considering here? I'm interested in opinions both from a moral and a practical/legal perspective. (edit: ack formatting!)

[hacksoncode]

No person *of sound mind* would ever consent to be harmed (I.e. take an action they consider to have a net negative expected outcome), that is correct. And if they are not of sound mind they can't consent. 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.

[mastermind42]

I am going to just address the suicide argument since everything else has been already critiqued. ONE: Suicide is a waste of human potential. It is important is to get more out of the investment of time and resources that go into raising a person then it cost to raise them. In order to raise someone up to the age of (for example) 18, that is 18 years in which this person consumed resources, time, and effort. If it lived in a first world country, this included teachers, doctors, massive amount of food, nonrenewable resources, etc. It consumed ALL of this on a implied social debt to society. It "borrowed" from the bank of humanity with the promise of at least trying to repay it. Whatever station in life this person chooses, as long as this person at least attempts to fulfill a need in society, this person is trying to pay it back. Similar to how people might invest in a bulk purchase (i.e. buying the loans for a large number of homeowners), people hope that there is a net benefit. That for every one person that defaults on there loans, there is a plethora of people who pay on time continually. Just like that, this planet(or humanity if you want to look at it that way) has made a "bulk purchase" on humanity. The assumption is that humans will on the whole pay back there debts, what they took from us when they were being brought up. For every McDonald's employee living on welfare, there are enough people paying back in full, and some who are netting a benefit to society. It is because of this that a person doesn't have the right to commit suicide. They owe the rest of us for all the things they took. Similar to how it is illegal to walk away from your home before paying it back, it must be illegal to walk away from life without repaying that which you took. TWO: Happiness is not important. From an objective perspective, individual human happiness is not particularly important. In fact, humanity would have been at a great loss if many very important people through our history had lived a happier life. Van Gogh is a classic example of this considering he cut of his own ear. Gregor Medel, the father of genetics, was considered an nutcase and dismissed for a long time. He died thinking he was never going to be remembered. Similarly, Ludwig Boltzmann's theories of the nature of matter was considered ludicrous until well after his death. These people lived terrible lives of rejection and a belief that they had failed in there chosen fields. And yet, they has been immeasurably magnificent contributors to society. The point here is that one can be useful to humanity without being happy. We cannot let something as trivial as one's happiness over there life get in the way of getting the most out of them. edit: wasn't don't typing accidentally pressed save.

[thisistheperfectname]

I signed no contract with society. I was made to live in it and told to abide by its rules and allow myself to be mugged yearly by the state or be locked in a cage. If you accept that I have the right to life that means I own myself, and if I own myself then I am my property, and I can do what I want with my property, including destroying it.

[rajeshsr]

I am tempted to use Kantian idea of ethics, here. If you universalize this (that is everybody thinks along these lines) particular notion: "I am my property. So, I deserve to treat my body the way I want to. I would like to suicide.", then humanity has no future. Well, for starters, let us agree on a fundamental axiom: "Progress of Human kind". Given this, if kids are not taken care of properly because everybody wants to give benefit of doubt to the child that it may decide to end its life, then there will be no progress in humanity. So, there is an incentive to make it hard for people to suicide, so that we don't end up in a state where all kids are thrown out without being nurtured. Now, is suicide categorically bad? Frankly, I don't believe so. In particular, I strongly believe if I were to ever become "irrevocably" insane or rendered into a complete "irrevocable" coma(this is already happening in terms of removing life support based on doctor's belief of your chances), I would like to be euthanized. In this case, it is pretty apparent that, I won't be of any use to anybody or even myself, so spending resource on me is just stupid. As a generalization, we can argue the same about all free-riders in the system. May be free-riders should be euthanized or at least be allowed to suicide? But the problem, here is, we don't have a reliable mechanism to deduce if I will be "irrevocably" insane or someone else is going to be a chronic free-rider(think Halting Problem if you are from CS! :) ). No matter how good a definition you could come up with for what constitutes a free-rider based on past records, one fine morning, he may solve the Quantum Teleportation problem! So, we will never be sure about this. Though in theory, there is a case for facilitating suicide, I don't believe we will ever be able to get a fool-proof mechanism that can legitimize suicide.

[thisistheperfectname]

About kids committing suicide, like adults, they already can, in a sense, without repercussions from society (how can you prosecute a dead person?). The problem with that comparison to "free riders" is that denies the "free riders" their self-ownership. How can I own myself, but that other person not own himself, if self-ownership is a universal truth? [STA-CITE]> I don't believe we will ever be able to get a fool-proof mechanism that can legitimize suicide. [END-CITE]I'm not sure that it's needed, other than assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Someone can kill him or herself, and, since that person is dead, he or she cannot be punished for it. I actually think we've strayed from what /u/mastermind42 was saying. His rationale for suicide being bad was that you are no longer feeding the tax farm, and that society as a whole is somehow of so much greater importance than those that make it up that it can subjugate them. That was my bone to pick with him.

[rajeshsr]

As far being terminally ill, take the case of Stephen Hawkins, he was diagnosed of Motor Neuron disease and doctors believed he will die in 2 years, now should he have suicided? The problem is that what is a "lost case" is not very clear. We don't have a fool-proof mechanism to find that. Again, I do believe in being euthanized, not when I am terminally ill, yet, my brain functions fine with some additional support. But when I become insane, say I suffer from Alzheimer's disease, I want to be euthanized. (Again this is my current view. If I suffer from Motor Neuron Disease now, I will be tempted to suicide for all you know) But we don't yet have a clear idea of when I am going to become irrevocably affected by it. May be I will recover. May be I am going to prove Reimann Hypothesis after recovering? :) In order to make it pragmatic, I think a significant amount of time spent being "useless" is a good reason to euthanize me. You can come up with a reasonable distribution of this useless period as a function of age, by looking at data, for a particular diagnosis, from the past. But still, it is not fool-proof. May be you should take into account the service rendered by that person to the humanity? May be it is ok to let Bill Gates(insert your favorite person here) squander resources if he suffers from Alzheimer's, given all the great things he has done to the world? As far free-riders: if he threatens to suicide, if we cut off the "welfare" benefit he is deriving, should we continue to sponsor him or not? May be the state is going through a worst financial crisis and al welfare programs has to be stopped. In this case, even though we stop the program, should we not stop the free-rider from killing himself? That's the question here. May be that free-rider in question is working on P vs NP, but living like Unabomber(of course, he is not killing people! :) ) May be, he will solve it in next 30 years, but has provided no value to the society, after graduating from a public university. As far self-ownership, I do believe in that, to the extent it respects the "Progress of Human kind". Self-ownership is limited by this constraint. And suicide, for most part is bordering on affecting "Progress of Human kind". I have outlined my pragmatic scheme on suicide above. Though I would like the world to follow it, I believe it can't be 100% fool-proof and just wanted to highlight that. In fact, we already have a mini-form of that, when we allow life support to be taken, based on doctor's recommendation. We just have to take it more steps ahead. I do think, people should be allowed to suicide, but they should be made aware of the alternatives and be actively dissuaded first and they should come up with enough reason to suicide, even after that. Well, all i am saying is that suiciding should be an exercise in logic! :) What I mean by making it difficult to suicide, it should not be made a default, easily exercisable option, by any propaganda or belief system. Yeah, we have digressed from OP's initial thought on this. But just found your argument too tempting to continue on it separately.

[rajeshsr]

I use the same reasoning as your first point against suicide. But your 2nd point, though on face value, looks interesting doesn't explain the true picture. First, these geniuses came up with interesting ideas because the pleasure of finding these outweighed any other despair they have had. Happiness is subjective. Recognition may be a nice perk to have, but is not the sole motivation for Boltzman or Mendel in their work. Take the case of mathematicians like Grothendick, these guys don't give a damn whether the world takes them seriously. These guys are like isolated painters/artists, who derive pleasure in their work. So, undermining the importance of happiness doesn't make sense. No good can come out of anyone who is unhappy. Show me one person who is genuinely unhappy, who will do something useful that has the potential to empower humanity. One reason you could use to your advantage is that, most unhappiness is transitory; if you feel, you are not being recognized now and therefore to end your life, you are just being stupid. For example, if you are an A student and you somehow fail in an exam, you may feel you have failed the entire world and you may even desire to suicide. But in the grand scheme of things, you won't even remember that exam, when your work changes the world. So, the only reason to undermine unhappiness is that you may(and most likely are) be overestimating it. But it is extremely important, in order to be, a productive member of the society, to find something that is pleasurable to you. Only some form of individual pleasure produces something that makes this world better for humanity.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]> It is because of this that a person doesn't have the right to commit suicide. [END-CITE]This is an interesting argument about rights and duties, but doesn't really address consent: I can still consent to plenty of things I have no right to do. For example, I could easily consent to robbing a bank. I wasn't asking whether we have the *right* to commit suicide; I was asking whether it's even reasonable to talk about *consenting* to suicide.

[mastermind42]

oh, i thought that was just part of the setup and not your actual point of discussion. The catch-22 argument is pretty much the only thing to say then, as is the definition of the logical fallacy your mother was using.

[Icem]

"The point here is that one can be useful to humanity without being happy. We cannot let something as trivial as one's happiness over there life get in the way of getting the most out of them." That´s even more cruel than the Brave New World. At least Mustapha Mond provided some sort of artificial happiness via drugs.

[PixelOrange]

The reasoning that your mother uses is exactly why there are anti-consent laws in certain parts of the world in regards to BDSM. Some people like the dopamine response. It's a drug just like anything else. Pain can cause a lot of emotional release. To think that anyone who likes pain is mentally broken or insane is... well, insane!

[ArchitectofAges]

"Harm" has a broader definition than "pain."

[PixelOrange]

Not according to several states laws unfortunately.

[ralph-j]

There is a huge practical problem with allowing harming/killing someone with their consent: every perpetrator that wanted to cause harm without consent would simply make sure that they can present a written or recorded consent testimony of the victim. Under innocent until proven guilty, it would then be up to the victim or their survivors to prove that the consent was actually coerced.

[arrant_pedantry]

That is a really good point that I don't think I was considering seriously enough. I mean, from a moral point of view obviously coerced consent doesn't count, but from a legal/pragmatic point of view it would create a nightmare and I could see how a blanket rule that "by law, you can't consent to x, y, and z" could potentially be a net benefit to society even if in theory you *could* consent to them. &#8710

[ralph-j]

Thanks for the delta; I'm afraid it doesn't display correctly...

[arrant_pedantry]

∆ Because I am a klutz and forgot the semicolon! Should be fixed now :) Oy, and now DeltaBot is unhappy with me. Sorry DeltaBot! That is a really good point that I don't think I was considering seriously enough. I mean, from a moral point of view obviously coerced consent doesn't count, but from a legal/pragmatic point of view it would create a nightmare and I could see how a blanket rule that "by law, you can't consent to x, y, and z" could potentially be a net benefit to society even if in theory you could consent to them.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[arrant_pedantry]

Replying for strategic rescan purposes.

[ralph-j]

Thanks, it worked now! :)

[puppeteer107]

Do you include contact sports in this? More and more research is coming out linking football and concussions to long term problems yet there are still plenty of people on the gridiron. Some with pro boxing and other combat sports. And lets not even start with retired WWE personalities. Are all smokers insane? No one these days really thinks smoking is nothing but bad for your health but people start smoking every single day. How do we feel about non-violent resistance like MLK or Ghandi? Just because they have a goal doesn't mean they're still not engaging in activities that has a good chance of getting them beat up by cops. They knew it was coming. In my mind plenty of people consent to be harmed because they engage in activities they know will be harmful. Often like in sports there's a financial incentive or smoking a social incentive, but I don't think that should have anything to do it it.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]> consent to be harmed because they engage in activities they know will be harmful. Often like in sports there's a financial incentive or smoking a social incentive, but I don't think that should have anything to do it it. [END-CITE]This is something I was struggling with. But take the football example. If you consent to playing in the NFL, you know that you're at risk for concussions, etc. (otherwise your consent is not informed and therefore meaningless). BUT, you presumably also know that you'll get paid a lot of money for your effort. So signing a contract is just an assertion that the net benefit ($$$) is more important to you than the net harm (risk of concussion) and that therefore you're not *really* consenting to harm since the thing you're consenting to is giving you a net benefit. You could make a similar argument about smoking, civil disobedience, etc.

[zxcv73]

I'm not sure on your definition of harm? 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.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]> But I'd say if you don't want this harm you aren't being rational. [END-CITE]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? Many people don't understand how you could get any gain out of something like BDSM but people who practice it say otherwise. Who gets to make that call? Where do we draw the line between "your kink is not my kink but your kink is OK" and "you are actually being abused and just don't realize it."?

[TOUCHER_OF_SHEEP]

It depends on the view here of "sanity" which is a tenuous concept at best. From within a certain reference frame, your mother's argument makes perfect sense. From others, it's not. Essentially, it makes perfect sense if you think that hurting yourself is literally "crazy." I don't really agree with that point of view, personally, but I can see how it could come to rise- because like many things that require overcoming natural self-preservation instincts, the though of self-harm or consenting to harm from others is naturally abhorrent.

[hacksoncode]

I'm going to agree with your mom, but not based on the reasoning you give here, but in a more definitional way. I will claim that no sane person wishes to be harmed, because "harm" can only be defined by the person doing the consenting. No one would ask to be harmed, because if they ask for it then whatever "it" is obviously doesn't fall into their definition of "harm", or they wouldnt be choosing to ask for it. In other words, you can't consent to being harmed, because if you consent to it, you by definition don't consider it "harm". *Other* people might consider it harm, but that doesn't change the nature of consent. Crazy people, conversely, do act against even their own wishes at times...that's part of what makes them crazy. But we don't necessarily consider them to be capable of consent in all circumstances.

[Icem]

That´s a great point but it obviously depends on how you define "harm". 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.

[RabbitHabits]

But what if you're given an ultimatum? Like if someone says "I'll free your kids but only if you let me cut off your hands." If you agree, its still harm being done, the harm is just prioritized.

[hacksoncode]

It's not consent if it's under duress... that's Consent 101 stuff.

[RabbitHabits]

Yeah you're right that was dumb.

[JustAnotherCrackpot]

[STA-CITE]> No one would ask to be harmed, because if they ask for it then whatever "it" is obviously doesn't fall into their definition of "harm", or they wouldnt be choosing to ask for it. [END-CITE]This is a logical fallacy. This assumes that no sane person can ask for harm, and then says if they do its either no harmful to them, or they are insane. The only thing I would have to do to disprove this argument is get someone declared sane, and have them ask to be harmed. This is would be fairly simple to do as their motivation to be harmed would be to prove you wrong. So we can see outside motivations can lead people to seek out harm. While still being sane. One other example of this would be a family man that commits suicide with the intention of his life insurance policy providing for his family.

[hacksoncode]

I said this elsewhere, but if they see the benefits as outweighing the costs, then obviously *they* don't see it as being "harm", and if they are sane they're more or less by definition the only ones that can make that judgement. *You* might call it "harm", but you're not the one consenting, so you don't get a vote.

[JustAnotherCrackpot]

This is the no true Scotsmen argument. You said people don't consent to things they see as harmful. I said here is a situation were someone consents to something obviously harmful. You say well if they consented they obviously didn't see it as harmful. 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.

[hacksoncode]

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.

[JustAnotherCrackpot]

[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 ?

[hacksoncode]

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. Edit: added lack of duress to definition.

[JustAnotherCrackpot]

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. Edit: Why should I be excluded from doing something that is a net negative ? Give me one good reason why.

[hacksoncode]

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.

[JustAnotherCrackpot]

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.

[Random_Animal_Pic]

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.

[hacksoncode]

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.

[Random_Animal_Pic]

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.

[hacksoncode]

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.

[Random_Animal_Pic]

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.

[[missing]]

[Random_Animal_Pic]

Tell me if I am misinterpreting "harm" or informed consent here. 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.

[hacksoncode]

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.

[Random_Animal_Pic]

I just wanted to clarify the definition of harm. Now to the real hard part. The main premise is that is that no sane person would do harm to themselves. First does this include calculated risks as insanity. At what point does this risk make someone insane. For example, surgery(such as removing a tumor) will remove more harm than it causes but this comes at a risk of death or other complications. Now for a surgery this seems like an easy decision, but other examples get more complex. Would someone risk harming themselves or putting themselves in danger to save their own child. Now to the person the risk is worth it, but at what point does the risk become insane. Jumping into a swimming pool to save your child comes with minimal risk and does not seem insane. Running into a burning house to save your child is much more risky and also does not seem insane. How about pushing your child out of the way of a car and possibly getting hit yourself? My point here is that people harm themselves or put themselves in harms way all the time and what determines the insanity is the risk factor (or probability) that the benefit will outweigh the cost. This is why some people consider it insane to do extreme sports (such as skydiving) while other people consider skydiving sane and fun. The difference between the 2 people is where they draw the risk vs reward line.

[hacksoncode]

I would draw the line at the point where the insane person is "consenting" things that *they* think are harmful to themselves. There's a threshold, of course, where so many people in society disagree with a person's definition of "harm" that they will conclude the person is insane even if they are entirely rational, but very eccentric... and thus declare them insane. I view that as a sad thing, though.

[rajeshsr]

How do you propose we will know, if the subject assented to something knowing that they will be harmed? I find this definition useless. We will never be able to know. In fact, I will even assert that, no person will ever knowingly want to be harmed. If he has assented to being harmed, he knows he will be rewarded in some other way that offsets that harm. At least he believes so, based on what he knows. The only definition, that stands out now is that "harm" is defined by vox populi. But the more interesting question to answer here is, how is majority opinion getting formed. What is the guiding principle here. The problem is, common people are inherently less-informed. They will just see the risk taken by the guy, given that it comes to limelight, only when the subject has screwed up in taking the risk. Say, for example, I engage in a 100k bet with a friend of mine that I will jump from top of a 3 storeyed building to the 2nd floor balcony. Now If i win, nobody is going to know. But, if i lose and lost by legs, there will be a million people saying that I have been insane; because they don't appreciate the risk-reward tradeoff, the way I have seen it. I know that the 2nd floor balcony is protruding outward and if i don't give a lot of horizontal velocity to myself there is a good chance that I will have hit that. And I need that 100k to pay for my med school. Otherwise I have to wait for 2 years doing some odd jobs, hoping that I will be able to make that 100k in such jobs. Well, 2 yrs is my best chance. In the worst case, it can go to 5 years. Now because, I failed, I will start to regret! Regret is mostly rooted in lack of well-informed consent. For example, I may have over-estimated the protruding of that 2d floor balcony when under-estimating the "natural" horizontal velocity I get when I jump off. Or may be I am just thinking that is the problem, when I was literally running from the top floor, which gave too much horizontal velocity, when it is very easy to get it right. None of this matters. I have failed. I will come up with some stupid reason to find fault with my "informedness" when I gave consent. But this adds fuel to people's idea of my incapacity to consent. So, people deciding, my incapacity to consent based on my failure, when not caring if I succeed, is just not meant to question my consent.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]> In other words, you can't consent to being harmed, because if you consent to it, you by definition don't consider it "harm". Other people might consider it harm, but that doesn't change the nature of consent. [END-CITE]This is a really good point, and I don't think it's a distinction that was really clear in my mind beforehand, so thank you for pointing it out. It still doesn't answer questions of law (since in the legal system someone else is assessing "harm") but it really clarifies the moral side of things. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hacksoncode. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[zardeh]

[STA-CITE]>This is circular reasoning and therefore completely unconvincing to me because I don't buy into the premise (which is also the conclusion). [END-CITE]It isn't, its a catch-22, but it isn't necessarily tautology. If we look at the logical steps a little differently, you'll see this: 1. Informed consent is the only valid form of consent (we take this as canon) 2. Assume sane people do not wish to be harmed (the premise) 3. Only a sane person can give informed consent 4. By 2, any person who wishes to be harmed is insane. 5. Since any person wishing to be harmed is insane (4), any person wishing to be harmed cannot give informed consent, because only a sane person can give informed consent (3) 6. Any person wishing to be harmed is insane and therefore their consent is not valid (5) There is no circular reasoning or tautology there, the result is not implicit in the statement that no sane person wishes to be harmed. The premise, "no sane person wishes to be harmed" and the conclusion "the consent of any person wishing to be harmed is invalid" are not the same or self-implicating, so if its unconvincing specifically because it is circular, well that's done then. [STA-CITE]>From a more pragmatic/legislative perspective, who gets to decide what "harm" is? Is it physical injury? X level of pain? Visible marks? Permanent injury? What if I'm really into BDSM and the physical pain of getting spanked (or whatever) produces such a great mental benefit that the overall effect is positive? Would this fall under "you're not really consenting to harm in that case"? Again, how would you measure or judge this? [END-CITE]There are options, one is being economical and measuring units of pain vs. units of pleasure, and if pleasure is greater, there is a net benefit. I personally would also think that permanence would matter. For humans, injuries smaller than a bruise or a small cut are more or less inconsequential, you don't suffer serious, long term harm from them. They hurt for hours or days, and that's all. Losing an arm on the other hand can have far reaching consequences, and by virtue of it being in-feasible to measure the relative utility of losing an arm versus the pleasure it provides, that should be illegal, same with breaking bones etc. [STA-CITE]>Excluding people who think the harm will ultimately be a net benefit (the BDSM scenario), maybe there is no rational reason from a purely self-interested perspective to consent to harm, but human beings do all kinds of things for irrational reasons and yet we don't consider that to invalidate their consent. Why is this different? [END-CITE]Like what? [STA-CITE]>Regret after the fact does not prove that you didn't consent at the time. [END-CITE]While regret on its own is not absolute proof of a lack of consent (ie. I regret that engagement ring I bought), it can imply a lack of informed-ness (for lack of a better term). Even though I really wanted to at the time, I regret buying the last beer, and had my mind not been clouded by alcohol, I probably would not have bought drink number ten. Even though I really wanted to at the time, I regret attempting to hang myself, and had my mind not been clouded by the strange mixture of endorphins swirling within it at the time, I probably would not have attempted to do it.

[ukdanny93]

How would this apply to someone with a terminal condition who knows that every remaining moment of there existence will be spent in pain. Could they not rationally decide that an end to existance (presuming no belief in an afterlife) is preferable to a constant pain followed by an inevitable death?

[Purgecakes]

that is also a peculiar case in which being harmed will completely stop harm. Harm among many other things. No matter what you do, you will be harmed. Except if you are nuked out of your mind on painkillers, the dosage of which will eventually kill you. In this case, it is about at what point you cut your losses and succumb. When all options are equally bad and have the same laws apply, just roll with whatever, it doesn't matter overly much.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]>There is no circular reasoning or tautology there, the result is not implicit in the statement that no sane person wishes to be harmed. The premise, "no sane person wishes to be harmed" and the conclusion "the consent of any person wishing to be harmed is invalid" are not the same or self-implicating, so if its unconvincing specifically because it is circular, well that's done then. [END-CITE]You have schooled me in logic, and I appreciate it. Thank you! [STA-CITE]> Excluding people who think the harm will ultimately be a net benefit (the BDSM scenario), maybe there is no rational reason from a purely self-interested perspective to consent to harm, but human beings do all kinds of things for irrational reasons and yet we don't consider that to invalidate their consent. Why is this different? > > > > Like what? [END-CITE]Like all kinds of things. For example, yesterday I went to Walgreens to buy mouthwash. There was an 8-ounce bottle for something like $3 and a 16-ounce bottle for something like $4. Obviously in this situation, the rational thing to do is to buy the 16-ounce bottle since it's cheaper per ounce. And yet, on my bathroom counter right now there's an 8-ounce bottle of mouthwash. I irrationally picked the one that was immediately cheaper, rather than the one that was actually a better deal, and yet I had all the information necessary to make the rational choice and nobody could say it was forced or nonconsensual (I had enough money for either, was not being harassed by any salesman, etc. etc.). [STA-CITE]>it can imply a lack of informed-ness (for lack of a better term). [END-CITE]OK, but if we're going to take as a premise that every act must be the process of a 100% informed and logical process, then all kinds of totally normal things that people do are just as "nonconsensual" as agreeing to harm. In that case, you might even consider it "nonconsensual" to buy anything based on advertising, since advertising is deliberately designed to put you in a non-rational frame of mind. So how does that separate agreeing to harm from anything else we take as consensual? Basically I think I'm questioning "perfect rationality" or "100% informed-ness" as grounds that you can reasonably stipulate for consent in a pragmatic sense, since it rarely actually works that way in the real world.

[zardeh]

[STA-CITE]>K, but if we're going to take as a premise that every act must be the process of a 100% informed and logical process, then all kinds of totally normal things that people do are just as "nonconsensual" as agreeing to harm. In that case, you might even consider it "nonconsensual" to buy anything based on advertising, since advertising is deliberately designed to put you in a non-rational frame of mind. So how does that separate agreeing to harm from anything else we take as consensual? [END-CITE]By lack of informed-ness, I meant lack of informed consent. I can give informed consent while in a sane state of mind, even if it is based on incomplete information, I cannot however give informed consent in an insane state of mind, even if based on complete information. [STA-CITE]>Like all kinds of things. For example, yesterday I went to Walgreens to buy mouthwash. There was an 8-ounce bottle for something like $3 and a 16-ounce bottle for something like $4. Obviously in this situation, the rational thing to do is to buy the 16-ounce bottle since it's cheaper per ounce. And yet, on my bathroom counter right now there's an 8-ounce bottle of mouthwash. I irrationally picked the one that was immediately cheaper, rather than the one that was actually a better deal, and yet I had all the information necessary to make the rational choice and nobody could say it was forced or nonconsensual (I had enough money for either, was not being harassed by any salesman, etc. etc.). [END-CITE]There are totally rational reasons: maybe you have a preference for small bottles, maybe you don't have a lot of counterspace, maybe you go through mouthwash slowly and will end up throwing away part of either bottle, so with the $3 one you lose less money. No matter the reason, there is probably an applicable argument as for why your choice was rational.

[arrant_pedantry]

[STA-CITE]>By lack of informed-ness, I meant lack of informed consent. I can give informed consent while in a sane state of mind, even if it is based on incomplete information, I cannot however give informed consent in an insane state of mind, even if based on complete information. [END-CITE]So you're saying that regret after the fact implies that you were in an altered state of mind when you took the decision, and therefore even if you had all the facts you by definition couldn't give informed consent? I guess I see the line of logic, but I'm just not sure there's a bright line where "past X amount of mind-alteration" you are no longer competent to consent. What about being very moved by extreme anger? Or grief? It seems to me that there's more of a spectrum of sanity rather than a rational/irrational dichotomy, so the lines are blurry at best... [STA-CITE]>There are totally rational reasons: maybe you have a preference for small bottles, maybe you don't have a lot of counterspace, maybe you go through mouthwash slowly and will end up throwing away part of either bottle, so with the $3 one you lose less money. No matter the reason, there is probably an applicable argument as for why your choice was rational. [END-CITE]I mean theoretically I could have had a rational reason (as you point out, there are several potential rational reasons that I could have considered), but in fact I don't think I actually did. I certainly wasn't considering anything as logical as my counter space or typical rate of going through mouthwash. There was no sense of "what kind of mouthwash purchase will best serve my interests?" - I actually looked at the big bottle, thought to myself "this one is cheaper per ounce," and then kind of thought "nah..." and picked it up the small bottle and bought it. I actually have *no idea* why I didn't get the big one. I'm sorry if I'm being really obtuse here; I just am not totally convinced.

[zardeh]

[STA-CITE]>So you're saying that regret after the fact implies that you were in an altered state of mind when you took the decision, and therefore even if you had all the facts you by definition couldn't give informed consent? [END-CITE]I'm saying that regret after the fact *might* signal that, once again, the engagement ring I bought and regret wasn't because I was in an altered state of mind, it was simply because the situation later changed. But beyond that slight difference, yeah that's pretty much what i'm saying. [STA-CITE]>I guess I see the line of logic, but I'm just not sure there's a bright line where "past X amount of mind-alteration" you are no longer competent to consent. What about being very moved by extreme anger? Or grief? It seems to me that there's more of a spectrum of sanity rather than a rational/irrational dichotomy, so the lines are blurry at best... [END-CITE]There's this weird legal thing called [temporary insanity](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+insanity) that is exactly this blurry idea. [STA-CITE]>I mean theoretically I could have had a rational reason (as you point out, there are several potential rational reasons that I could have considered), but in fact I don't think I actually did. I certainly wasn't considering anything as logical as my counter space or typical rate of going through mouthwash. There was no sense of "what kind of mouthwash purchase will best serve my interests?" - I actually looked at the big bottle, thought to myself "this one is cheaper per ounce," and then kind of thought "nah..." and picked it up the small bottle and bought it. I actually have no idea why I didn't get the big one [END-CITE]Just because you didn't overtly (or I guess the better word here is consciously) weigh all of the pros and cons doesn't mean you didn't subconsciously do so, all of microeconomics works based on the fact that at our basis, humans act rationally, even when we might not think we are.