sravaka
Posts: 314
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
|
This is a fascinating and valuable thread.
When I think about it, I keep coming back to the idea that (at risk of being lit-crit-y) giving consent is a speech act, a communication with both illocutionary and (potentionally) perlocutionary force.
Definitions: if person A says "He has a gun," the locutionary act is no more than describing the fact that someone has a gun. The illocutionary act may, for example, be giving a warning. It gets perlocutionary if uttering the statement causes another to act, as in making person B run away or duck.
In short... consent is an interaction. This in itself doesn't particularly need to be said; it's obvious from every single post so far. But the sticky point isn't really the intentionality (including competency) behind the locution. It's in whether or not the communication gives rise to action. Following from that (sort of)... well, a few things.
* Sanity or competency is of necessity in the eye of the beholder. (others have said this with less need for gymnastics.) So is perception that an illocutionary act of "consent" is present. (a whole other can of worms.) Both of these things have a great deal to do with the perceiver's motivations, desires, ethics, "competency" etc. I wonder if this can safely be left out of the equation.
Person A may wish to have his/her leg lopped off. Ultimately, whether or not that desire is sane or rooted in competency is entirely academic unless someone else decides to aid and abet the desire. (Of course, its being academic is not a reason not to discuss it. I just wonder whether that discussion can be completely productive without accounting for all the relevant variables.)
*Why would one wish to aid and abet that desire? Just to make the aspiring amputee happy? Maybe, if one were merely giving a referral; doubtful if one were seeking to be actively involved, to do the amputation oneself.
If (case 1) person A is an apotemnophile and person B an acrotomophile (person who likes amputees), shall we be happy that they found each other and leave it there, whatever squicky feeling we might have at a gut level? What if (case 2) they both perceive it as a profound symbol of self-sacrifice on the part of the amputee, something he/she was willing to do for both of them, with the assurance that the amputator would cherish and take care of him/her and that the act would cement their intimacy? (might two be the minimum necessary for argumentum ad populum?) 3) What if (case 3) person A wants to give a leg as a gesture of self-sacrifice and person B just wants to feel his/her own power to maim? Does any of this matter? If it doesn't, would it matter if you substitute "beating until bloody" for "lopping off a leg"?
Finally, by what authority does someone decide to amputate the leg of another, or beat another bloody, or accept another's service? Is competent consent all that's needed? (and if that's the case, must not competently given consent also involve full knowledge and understanding of the do-er's motivations, etc.?) Or must it also include something more-- concern for mutual pleasure? Willingness to take responsibility? Aesthetic considerations? Defensible arrogance?
Sorry. I suspect this will not help at all, in the end, and that it will render even more intractably difficult and undefinable something that was already intractable and indefinable enough. But... I'm also curious whether a slight shift of the frame might not yield other thoughts that will reflect back profitably on the original question.
Regardless, it has been very interesting to read all this. I hope there will be more.
--sravaka
_____________________________
Miseries hold me fixed, and I would gladly cut these roots to become a floating plant. I would yield myself up utterly, if the inviting stream could be relied upon. --Ono no Komachi
|
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread