Abstract

In Wrongs and Crimes, Victor Tadros clarifies the debate about whether consent needs to be communicated by separating the question of whether consent requires expressive behaviour from the question of whether it requires “uptake” in the form of comprehension by the consent-receiver. Once this distinction is drawn, Tadros argues both that consent does not require uptake and that consent does not require expressive behaviour that provides evidence to the consent-receiver. As a result, Tadros takes the view that consent requires an attempt to communicate, but nothing more. While I have found Tadros’s arguments for this conclusion intriguing and challenging, I am yet to be persuaded by them. In this essay, I try to say why.

Highlights

  • What Does Morally Valid Consent Consist In?To contextualise Tadros’s views on consent, let us briefly survey an enduring debate about what constitutes morally effective consent

  • Reading Wrongs and Crimes, your awe is inspired by the sheer range of topics that it covers, as well as the sheer number of the arguments offered on any one of these topics

  • Victor Tadros addresses a huge number of ethical issues about consent

Read more

Summary

What Does Morally Valid Consent Consist In?

To contextualise Tadros’s views on consent, let us briefly survey an enduring debate about what constitutes morally effective consent. An account of consent ought to clarify these conditions, e.g. by specifying what counts as “suitable” voluntariness, information, or capacity Even once it has filled in these gaps, the account still needs to say what morally valid consent is. The most plausible Behavioural Views require some intention on the part of the consent-giver. On the other side of the debate, Tadros argues that the most plausible Mental Views should conceive of consent as a mental act. One such view is the following: Non-Communicative Mental View: Consent is an act that can be performed purely mentally, without any attempt to communicate. It is a sophisticated version that allows that as a contingent matter of fact a rational person’s attempt to communicate will nearly always involve some behaviour

Tadros’s Arguments Against the Uptake View
The Mumble Argument
The Delayed Consent Argument
The Control Argument
The Valuable Opportunity Argument
The Deliberation and Duties Argument
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.