I think this is a difficult question because if another person's past determination is dissonant with their current will, they will be mad at you at some point regardless of what decision you make.
Take the tobacco example. If you give them their tobacco because you value the "current will" more heavily, they could be mad at you afterwards, saying that you ruined their plans on refraining from smoking. But if you deny them their tobacco because you value the "past determination" more heavily (and think that they would regret it afterwards if they did end up smoking), although they could be grateful to you afterwards, they would still scream at you at the moment for not giving them their tobacco.
I am aware that other situations could be more complicated, but even with the parachute example, you could never truly know if the other person is genuinely changing their mind, or is simply chickening out at the moment and would regret not parachuting down the plane afterwards. Therefore, there is not much of an "optimal decision" you can make.
I think the best way to handle these situations is to ask the other person beforehand, "What should I do if you change your mind at the moment?" Because you are asking them when they are presumably in a calm and rational state, you are able to get a finalized confirmation on what you should do when they do change their minds later on. This way, it is now the other person who is being held accountable for their own decisions.
I believe this can also apply to your own thoughts and decisions when you are the one enlisting others for paternalism, as you are given an opportunity to ask yourself twice before committing to a plan and holding yourself responsible for your choices.
This is a great set of questions, questions that are often being discussed in Emergency Departments of hospitals in particular. I think many people would do well to consider them more often and in more depth than they currently do.
Also - the 'tapping' equivalent for boxing is taking a knee, you can drop to a knee at any point and the referee will pause the fight for an 8 count.
I haven't read this piece yet,I will,soon. Congratulations on working with Theater of War productions. So cool,first a new daughter and now Bill Murray is going to give voice to your words.
A fascinating topic. And I'm glad you included sex, as that's an endlessly complicated yet interesting area for this.
One possible heuristic, which you could even use in the heat of the moment and which I'm currently writing about in my own essay, is "what could this person live with?" That takes it from a moral question to almost a practical question.
If you know a person well enough, maybe you know beyond any reasonable doubt what he'd want. Maybe you know that, if he were drunk and couldn't say one way or the other, he'd prefer for you to hit him in the face to stop him from starting a fight with a police officer. Because he can live with what you've done, but he couldn't live with the consequences of assaulting a cop. His hatred for you will be forgiven much more easily than his self-hatred for an aggravated felony.
I've taken a leap and equated your article with acting on someone's behalf without consent, which I do many times on behalf of my sister who is cognitively impaired. She wants to act autonomously but sometimes hen she does, the consequences are not favorable.
1. "Where" matters (where on the body). A woman asks you to help her into a truck cab, giving her consent for you to touch her, but you touch her on the butt under her skirt while helping her into the cab.
2. "Where/when" matters. You're alone with your girlfriend; she consents to sexual touching; her mother, unexpectedly, looks in the room; you see the mother, but your girlfriend does not; you continue to touch your girlfriend; the mother is embarrassed and walks away; later, after she finds out her mother saw both of you, your girlfriend is angry at you for continuing to touch her after her mother looked, even though she had consented to your touching.
3. Mis-matched ethics. You're hunting, about to shoot a deer; hidden behind a bush is a vegan; as you are about to shoot, the vegan reaches out and nudges your elbow so that your gunshot misses the deer. The vegan did the "right" thing by saving the life of a sentient being even though you did not give your consent to being touched.
"Christina Starmans pointed out something weird about this story—if the men had beeswax in their ears, how could Odysseus “command [them] to set him free”? What could he mean when he said: “I told my men to free me”? Perhaps Odysseus had a very expressive face? Or maybe his men were lip readers?"
- Maybe Odysseus yelled super hard hoping the sound would get through the beeswax, much in the same way one does when one's is trying to talk to a person wearing headphones or earplugs.
To explore the limits of the common-sense notion of consent, and, in particular, to distinguish two competing theories of when it’s morally ok to touch someone against the will (as in the Ahab case).
But I figure this is obvious, and so isn’t a good answer to your question. Can you be clear about what’s confusing you?
I think this is a difficult question because if another person's past determination is dissonant with their current will, they will be mad at you at some point regardless of what decision you make.
Take the tobacco example. If you give them their tobacco because you value the "current will" more heavily, they could be mad at you afterwards, saying that you ruined their plans on refraining from smoking. But if you deny them their tobacco because you value the "past determination" more heavily (and think that they would regret it afterwards if they did end up smoking), although they could be grateful to you afterwards, they would still scream at you at the moment for not giving them their tobacco.
I am aware that other situations could be more complicated, but even with the parachute example, you could never truly know if the other person is genuinely changing their mind, or is simply chickening out at the moment and would regret not parachuting down the plane afterwards. Therefore, there is not much of an "optimal decision" you can make.
I think the best way to handle these situations is to ask the other person beforehand, "What should I do if you change your mind at the moment?" Because you are asking them when they are presumably in a calm and rational state, you are able to get a finalized confirmation on what you should do when they do change their minds later on. This way, it is now the other person who is being held accountable for their own decisions.
I believe this can also apply to your own thoughts and decisions when you are the one enlisting others for paternalism, as you are given an opportunity to ask yourself twice before committing to a plan and holding yourself responsible for your choices.
This is a great set of questions, questions that are often being discussed in Emergency Departments of hospitals in particular. I think many people would do well to consider them more often and in more depth than they currently do.
Also - the 'tapping' equivalent for boxing is taking a knee, you can drop to a knee at any point and the referee will pause the fight for an 8 count.
I haven't read this piece yet,I will,soon. Congratulations on working with Theater of War productions. So cool,first a new daughter and now Bill Murray is going to give voice to your words.
Thank you, Stephanie — I didn’t know which actors were involved until you sent out that post.
Well, a very excellent surprise, I hope.
A fascinating topic. And I'm glad you included sex, as that's an endlessly complicated yet interesting area for this.
One possible heuristic, which you could even use in the heat of the moment and which I'm currently writing about in my own essay, is "what could this person live with?" That takes it from a moral question to almost a practical question.
If you know a person well enough, maybe you know beyond any reasonable doubt what he'd want. Maybe you know that, if he were drunk and couldn't say one way or the other, he'd prefer for you to hit him in the face to stop him from starting a fight with a police officer. Because he can live with what you've done, but he couldn't live with the consequences of assaulting a cop. His hatred for you will be forgiven much more easily than his self-hatred for an aggravated felony.
I've taken a leap and equated your article with acting on someone's behalf without consent, which I do many times on behalf of my sister who is cognitively impaired. She wants to act autonomously but sometimes hen she does, the consequences are not favorable.
1. "Where" matters (where on the body). A woman asks you to help her into a truck cab, giving her consent for you to touch her, but you touch her on the butt under her skirt while helping her into the cab.
2. "Where/when" matters. You're alone with your girlfriend; she consents to sexual touching; her mother, unexpectedly, looks in the room; you see the mother, but your girlfriend does not; you continue to touch your girlfriend; the mother is embarrassed and walks away; later, after she finds out her mother saw both of you, your girlfriend is angry at you for continuing to touch her after her mother looked, even though she had consented to your touching.
3. Mis-matched ethics. You're hunting, about to shoot a deer; hidden behind a bush is a vegan; as you are about to shoot, the vegan reaches out and nudges your elbow so that your gunshot misses the deer. The vegan did the "right" thing by saving the life of a sentient being even though you did not give your consent to being touched.
"Christina Starmans pointed out something weird about this story—if the men had beeswax in their ears, how could Odysseus “command [them] to set him free”? What could he mean when he said: “I told my men to free me”? Perhaps Odysseus had a very expressive face? Or maybe his men were lip readers?"
- Maybe Odysseus yelled super hard hoping the sound would get through the beeswax, much in the same way one does when one's is trying to talk to a person wearing headphones or earplugs.
Paul, I'm genuinely confused here. What is the intended thrust of this piece?
To explore the limits of the common-sense notion of consent, and, in particular, to distinguish two competing theories of when it’s morally ok to touch someone against the will (as in the Ahab case).
But I figure this is obvious, and so isn’t a good answer to your question. Can you be clear about what’s confusing you?