Phil exam 2 readings summarized

Dougherty Sex Lies and Consent - In "Sex, Lies, and Consent," Tom Dougherty explores the concept of consent within sexual ethics. This paper is part of a symposium on David Gauthier's work "Morals by Agreement." Dougherty's central concern is the role of deception in sexual interactions and the implications it has for obtaining valid consent. - Dougherty discusses different scenarios where consent may be obtained under deceptive circumstances, such as lying about one's identity, using false information to manipulate a partner into sex, or failing to disclose crucial information about sexual health. He examines the ethical implications of these scenarios, particularly in the context of Gauthier's contractualist theory. - The paper delves into the tension between respecting individual autonomy and ensuring that consent is truly informed and voluntary. - Tom Dougherty thinks that there are some cases of deception that do not undermine sexual consent and Sarah Conly thinks that there are some threats that do not undermine sexual consent. - Dougherty’s Overall Argument - Having sex with someone without his or her morally valid consent is seriously wrong - Deceiving someone into sex is having sex with him or her without morally valid consent - So, deceiving someone into sex is seriously morally wrong - What does it mean to “deceive someone into sex?” - Premise 1: What is an alternative explanation for the serious wrong of rape - Hypothesis 1 : rape is seriously wrong because of non-consent - Hypothesis 2 : rape is seriously wrong because of the physical and emotional harms involved - Argument by Chihuahua analogy - Would have never agreed to chihuahua coming into the house had he known it was a chihuahua in the first place - Only agreed because it wasn't a chihuahua - Did not have consent to bring the chihuahua into the house (was deceived) - Victoria/Chloe story - Victoria’s environmentalist/ hippie values deceived by the hunter/corporate lawyer who lied to have sex with her - Premise 2 Argument: - In the chihuahua story, AIsha is acting without morally valid consent from Tom - The chihuahua story is similar is all morally relevant aspects to the chloe/victoria story - So, chloe is acting without morally valid consent - Objection 1 - Maybe some lies undermine sexual consent but not all - Some may be ridiculous or even immoral

- Objection 2 - What if I couldn't have reasonably known that something was a deal breaker? - Dougherty's response: actively lying is too risky, you have to have a clean slate of truth before sex - It is possible that there is a victim without a morally wrong perpetrator - 3rd party involved - Objection 3 - What if they will be better off if they have sex and never know? - Dougherty’s response: coma patient argument; the degree to which someone is harmed or benefited by an act doesn't matter when it comes to consent. We don't need to know how much the act of sex would have benefited the person - Conclusion: how morally wrong is deceiving someone into sex? - Might not come with the trauma and suffering of rape - It is as wrong as having sex with the coma patient - Sarah Conly - Tom Dougherty thinks that there are some cases of deception that do not undermine sexual consent and Sarah Conly thinks that there are some threats that do not undermine sexual consent - Seduction : When a weakness of will is induced by someone else - Cookie analogy (Conly uses “freshly baked bread”) - Giving someone a cookie you want them to try by making the cookie seem so salient that they eventually cave in despite all things considered they don’t actually want it - This type of seduction, Conly calls: Appeal to Temptation - Appeal to Sanctions - Situation: all things considered you don’t want to eat cookies, and don’t like the ones i make - I say how i spent all day working on the cookies in order for you to enjoy them - You now would eat the cookie to not feel guilty or to not make me feel bad - You cave in to the desires to not feel bad - Different from coercion because the person in power makes it clear to the victim what will happen if you don’t agree to their terms - Seduction is where the victim emposes the sanctions on oneself. - Constraints on your own decisions come from yourself (Conly) - Mere desire to eat a cake vs an all things considered I want to be healthy and not have stomach pain tonight - Non Coercion and Appeal to rationality: persuasion - Non coercion and undermining rationality: seduction - Coercion and appeal to rationality: coercive threats - Coercion and undermining rationality: force

- Offers and Threats: The passage discusses the distinction between offers and threats and their impact on consent. It raises questions about whether offers can ever vitiate consent. Additionally, it examines how different types of threats, such as threats to life, bodily harm, or social consequences, affect consent. - Background Motivations: The text explores background motivations for consent that are not related to threats or offers. It differentiates between motivations based on false beliefs and warranted hopes and fears. Consent may still exist even when an individual has warranted hopes and fears about the outcome. - Vitiating Consent: The passage argues that coerced consent is still considered consent, although not all nonconsensual acts are necessarily serious moral wrongs or candidates for criminalization. The analysis suggests that not every case of nonconsensual sex should be regarded as a significant moral violation. - Threats to Third Parties: The passage briefly touches on the topic of one party's acquiescence in sex as a result of the other party's threat to violate the rights of third parties, such as children. It suggests that threats to third parties' rights might be a factor that vitiates consent. - Motivation condition: the threat must be sufficiently weighty in the victims motivations - threat must be deliberately significant in the victims choice to comply with the coercive demand - Alan Wetheimer and Larry Alexander - Agree about the nature of the constraint - Disagree about their motivations conditions for coerced consent John Rawls - The Original Position: Rawls introduces the concept of the "original position" as a hypothetical thought experiment. He asks readers to imagine a group of individuals who are behind a "veil of ignorance." In this position, individuals do not know their personal characteristics, such as their social status, talents, or economic standing. - The Veil of Ignorance: The veil of ignorance is a central element of Rawls' theory. It is designed to eliminate bias and self-interest. In the original position, individuals make decisions about the principles of justice without knowing how these principles will affect them personally. This helps ensure impartiality in establishing fair principles of justice. - Two Principles of Justice: Rawls proposes two principles of justice that individuals in the original position would agree upon: - The Liberty Principle : Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive array of basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others - The Difference Principle : Social/Economic inequalities must both (a) be to everyone's advantage (including that of the worst off), and (b) be attached to position and office open to all - -he's concerned for the equality of opportunity - -there can be differences, as long as it benefits everyone

- John Rawls and Robert Nozick recognize lack of opportunity for some children vs others, however they both think it should be handled differently - -They’re both contractualism - Priority of the First Principle: Rawls argues that the first principle (protecting basic liberties) takes precedence over the second principle. In other words, any economic or social inequalities must not compromise individual freedoms and rights. Tommie Shelby - Shelby argues that it is essential to consider the structural factors that contribute to deviant behavior when evaluating justice in these communities. - The essay begins by addressing the challenges of living in impoverished neighborhoods, often labeled as "ghettos." Shelby suggests that the focus on criminality within these communities can be misleading and overly simplistic. - He highlights that when individuals face severe economic and social disadvantages, their choices may be limited, and what society labels as "deviant" behavior can sometimes be a rational response to these conditions. - Argues that achieving justice requires addressing the structural inequalities that underlie deviant behavior. This involves considering issues like educational opportunities, economic disparities, and racial discrimination. - “Real” political philosophy rather than Rawls “ideal” political philosophy - Shelby points out that both the more liberal and conservative attitudes toward residents of black ghettos are problematic: - Unsympathetic Attitudes : We owe criminals nothing, especially of they will continue to disrupt law and order - More Liberal Attitudes : We need more welfare benefits and education to help reduce the effects of poverty and help ghetto residents make better life choices - Both Attitudes: - Assume that criminal behavior in the ghetto is morally wrong - Assume that the choices of residents resorting to crime in the ghetto are rationally criticizable - Because of the combination of past and present racial injustice combined with the economic scheme that results in economic opportunities coming mostly from economic inheritance , most black ghetto residents don’t have access to legal economic opportunity. - Lack of legal economic opportunity at times makes it rational to pursue illegal economic opportunities and to develop the character traits that enable these pursuits. - If ones only choices are: - deviance, welfare benefits, and menial labor - And the reason that these are your only choices are: - a history of racism and the prioritization of white people’s interests