Wednesday, October 12, 2022

Divine permission ethics

There are two ways of thinking about the ethics of consent.

On the first approach, there are complex prohibitions against non-consensual treatment in a number of areas of life, with details varying depending on the area of life (e.g., the prohibitions are even more severe in sexual ethics than in medicine). Thus, this is a picture where we start with a default permission, and layer prohibitions on top of it.

On the second, we start with a default autonomy-based prohibition on one person doing anything that affects another. That, of course, ends up prohibiting pretty much everything. But then we layer exceptions on that. The first is a blanket exception for when the affected person consents in the fullest way. And then we add lots and lots more exceptions, such as when the the effect is insignificant, when one has a special right to the action, etc.

The second approach is interesting. Most ethical systems start with a default of permission, and then have prohibitions on top of that. But the second system starts with a default of prohibitions, and then has permissions on top of that.

The second approach raises this question. Given that the default prohibition on other-affecting actions is grounded in autonomy, how could anything but the other’s consent override that prohibition? I think one direction this question points is towards something I’ve never heard explored: divine permission ethics. God’s permission seems our best candidate for what could override an autonomy-based prohibition. So we might get this picture of ethics. There is a default prohibition on all other-affecting actions, followed by two exceptions: when the affected person consents and when God permits.

I still prefer the first approach.

3 comments:

Walter Van den Acker said...

Alex

"Given that the default prohibition on other-affecting actions is grounded in autonomy, how could anything but the other’s consent override that prohibition?"

The answer is simple: nothing can override that prohibition, not even a hypothetical god. Because if god could do it, that would mean this prohibition is not grounded in autonomy.

Take, e.g. rape. Rape is, by definition, prohibited based on the autonomy of the victim. It's impossible to consent to being raped and god giving someone permission to rape me, would not remove my autonomy.

Alexander R Pruss said...

I don't think that we have autonomy rights against God.

(I think there is more wrong in rape than "just" violation of autonomy: There is violation of autonomy in an especially sacred kind of context.)

Walter Van den Acker said...

Alex

If we do not have autonome rights against God we don not really have autonome rights at all.
And whether they context is sacred it not is irrelevant. What is relevant is consent. Consesual sex is not rape even though sex itself may be a sacred context.