= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (477)
Some examples: the girl is under the age of consent, but looks older and lies to the boy; or the girl is drunk but says okay ... the "wrongness" (if any) of cases like that does not fall out of straightforward consequentialism, but out of the need for a Schelling Fence somewhere, and ideally a simple one.
I think Jabberslythe was referring to "non-consensual" as in actually non-consensual, not in the sense of "the legal jurisdiction doesn't recognize the legal validity of the person's consent, because of drunkenness/age"
This seems chiefly non-consensual for the boy, and it's certainly not justified to put him at risk of prosecution!
The next case sounds bad to me, perhaps because the issue would never arise with adults if when the drug(s) wore off she recalled saying it and would still have said 'yes'. (Or I may be reading it with the knowledge that the law does not, practically speaking, forbid sex with someone who's had a few drinks.) But I technically agree that we'd need more information.