hyperskeptic
New member
I've been ruminating on a question about what it is that puts the ethical in ethical non-monogamy. I haven't really settled the question to my own satisfaction, so I thought I'd introduce it here for some discussion.
What I'm hoping for is a really frank and serious discussion, but one that is aimed at greater understanding rather than at defending or supporting one particular agenda or another.
The question starts with an observation based on several years of reading on this and other forums.
Many people speak as though any kind of personal or intimate relationship is acceptable or justifiable so long as all parties to that relationship are adults and consent to its terms. To put it the other way around, so long as all parties consent, there is no basis whatsoever for anyone else to criticize that relationship, let alone try to limit it by any legal or institutional means.
In other words, consent is a sufficient condition for ethical justification; consent is enough.
So here's the question: Is consent really enough?
My hunch is that consent is a necessary condition for ethical justification of forms of relationships - no relationship between adults can pass ethical muster without consent - but I'm not really convinced that, once consent is secured, anything goes.
I have two reasons to doubt that consent is enough:
First, it seems to me many people have something of a thin notion of consent, mistaking really wanting something for consenting to it. As many threads about NRE reveal, really strong desire can cloud the kind of reasoned choice that is the basis of genuine consent.
If consent collapses into simple hedonism, it seems to me it can't even be a necessary condition for an ethical relationship, let alone a sufficient condition.
Second, while consent is certainly a central notion in ethics, it is not the only notion that makes claims upon us. There is also the principle that we should prevent harm to others and to ourselves, and that we should cultivate a moderate and disciplined character.
These don't always line up. So, suppose three people consent to a relationship the terms of which increase the risks of certain kinds of harms to others, or in some way erode or twist the development of character on the part of those involved.
In such a case, even if they all consent, perhaps they shouldn't continue that relationship on those terms.
Or suppose two people are at the beginning of a relationship and one or both of them has had their capacity to give free consent compromised in some way - because of addiction, or because of past abuse or oppression, for example - perhaps the fact that both now say "yes" should be viewed with some caution and some care.
I know I'm skating on thin ice, here, but I do it for the sake of learning.
I may even go so far to suggest that "yes" does not always mean "yes" and that, even if it does mean "yes", it doesn't mean that those involved should just dive in.
What I'm hoping for is a really frank and serious discussion, but one that is aimed at greater understanding rather than at defending or supporting one particular agenda or another.
The question starts with an observation based on several years of reading on this and other forums.
Many people speak as though any kind of personal or intimate relationship is acceptable or justifiable so long as all parties to that relationship are adults and consent to its terms. To put it the other way around, so long as all parties consent, there is no basis whatsoever for anyone else to criticize that relationship, let alone try to limit it by any legal or institutional means.
In other words, consent is a sufficient condition for ethical justification; consent is enough.
So here's the question: Is consent really enough?
My hunch is that consent is a necessary condition for ethical justification of forms of relationships - no relationship between adults can pass ethical muster without consent - but I'm not really convinced that, once consent is secured, anything goes.
I have two reasons to doubt that consent is enough:
First, it seems to me many people have something of a thin notion of consent, mistaking really wanting something for consenting to it. As many threads about NRE reveal, really strong desire can cloud the kind of reasoned choice that is the basis of genuine consent.
If consent collapses into simple hedonism, it seems to me it can't even be a necessary condition for an ethical relationship, let alone a sufficient condition.
Second, while consent is certainly a central notion in ethics, it is not the only notion that makes claims upon us. There is also the principle that we should prevent harm to others and to ourselves, and that we should cultivate a moderate and disciplined character.
These don't always line up. So, suppose three people consent to a relationship the terms of which increase the risks of certain kinds of harms to others, or in some way erode or twist the development of character on the part of those involved.
In such a case, even if they all consent, perhaps they shouldn't continue that relationship on those terms.
Or suppose two people are at the beginning of a relationship and one or both of them has had their capacity to give free consent compromised in some way - because of addiction, or because of past abuse or oppression, for example - perhaps the fact that both now say "yes" should be viewed with some caution and some care.
I know I'm skating on thin ice, here, but I do it for the sake of learning.
I may even go so far to suggest that "yes" does not always mean "yes" and that, even if it does mean "yes", it doesn't mean that those involved should just dive in.
Last edited: