Imagine this scenario: Husband cheats on wife; she doesn't know; he continues to have sex with her; she has never indicated...
-
that in this situation she would not want to know; & we can take it that she would consider it a relevant fact in terms of her decision...
to continue having sexual relations with her husband. Consent is normally said to be *informed* if person consenting knows & understands...
-
-
all relevant facts - or, at the very least, all facts that a reasonable person would expect them to take to be relevant. It seems to follow
-
that in this situation the husband does not have properly informed consent from his wife (and, arguably, should know he doesn't).
-
If that's right, following the logic of the argument, he's clealry doing wrong to his wife. Question is, then, what's the status of his act?
-
@PhilosophyExp Certainly some people (not me!) have called men in these situations -- i.e. undercover agents -- rapists. -
@AntigonesClaim Well, there is definitely something morally very dodgy about it. -
@PhilosophyExp Absolutely...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp It would work the same if sexes were reversed too. No exception to logical absolute there. -
@quirkathon Yes, logically the same if sexes reversed. It's simply about what constitutes informed consent, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp I've thought about this- it renders the act non consensual by default if premise of relationship is fidelity, logically.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.