In a different discussion I saw an appropriate post regarding some nonchalant comments made by a 3rd party about prostitution, the gist was that what someone does with his/her own body is his/her own business, provided that no coercion or hardship is prompting the situation in the first place. That got me thinking on the concept of consent, specifically because I see an overlap between the current "age of consent" discussion and prostitution, in which both are sex related, and require the participants to be able to agree voluntarily to perform sexual acts. In the case of statutory rape, the idea is that a young person is not able to consent to such acts, the rationale being that there is no reasonable understanding of the consequences of said acts, at least up until certain age. In the case of prostitution, the individual should be able to consent of his/her own free will, acknowledging also the consequences.
The question goes to at what point are we able to actually consent? Definitions and legal terms tend to draw hard lines, but the reality is that there is a large space for grey areas, understanding of consequences can happen well before or after the legal age, and in the case of prostitution, at what point can we say that poverty and/or lack of alternatives becomes coercion? I certainly can see how the more unemployment you have in a society relates with how ubiquitous prostitution can be, but other considerations apply, if you can get a lower paying/physically straining job instead do you have a choice?
The classical example is public bathroom cleaning. This is a job usually low skilled, badly paid, strenuous, and potentially uncomfortable, and those performing such job would likely change jobs at the first chance, which begs the question, are they able to consent to do such job? The counter question is, if a regular badly paid job, and a better paying sex trade job are available to the same person are they able to choose? Is any choice better than the other if at all?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 12, 2013, 10:17:46 PMThe classical example is public bathroom cleaning. This is a job usually low skilled, badly paid, strenuous, and potentially uncomfortable, and those performing such job would likely change jobs at the first chance, which begs the question, are they able to consent to do such job?
They have alternatives, for example becoming homeless and getting food at soup kitchens. So presumably it is a choice, at least of some sort, so one must assume consent.
But the quality of that choice is incredibly poor!
In other cases there are other options but cost-benefit analysis apply: the amount of effort vs the payoff, at what point are you consenting if the choices are all bad?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 13, 2013, 02:42:03 AM
But the quality of that choice is incredibly poor!
In other cases there are other options but cost-benefit analysis apply: the amount of effort vs the payoff, at what point are you consenting if the choices are all bad?
I did see a homeless man interviewed on TV who LIKED being homeless. He didn't really say why. But I somehow suspect he is one in a million. Yes, the choice is poor, and also as you say, what if all choices are bad. But I suppose one can consent, even to a bad choice you don't want to make. Does doing a job indicate consent providing it was not by coersion? I don't know. Another thing I saw on TV was an unemployed man who wouldn't apply for jobs at less than he was earning before, and he was getting "Job Seeking Allowance" - should this be allowed or should he be forced into shelf stacking or crop picking etc?
Zono: this is an excellent ethics question; it certainly doesn't lend itself to easy answers. I'm following the conversation while working on a response.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 13, 2013, 03:33:55 AM
I did see a homeless man interviewed on TV who LIKED being homeless.
While it's true that some homeless people like being homeless I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of homeless people don't like it as much, nor have many other options.
Another example, a man has a choice to work as a miner, risking life and limb everyday plus the very high probability that his life expectancy will be 30% shorter than the average... or he can starve because there are no other jobs available, not much of a choice, is it?
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 13, 2013, 03:33:55 AM
Another thing I saw on TV was an unemployed man who wouldn't apply for jobs at less than he was earning before, and he was getting "Job Seeking Allowance" - should this be allowed or should he be forced into shelf stacking or crop picking etc?
Until a few years ago this was legal over here within limits, i.e.an unemployed person would not lose the benefits when refusing a job that payed significantly less than the previous or the average for his previous line of work (iirc a quarter or a third less was the limit), also jobs one was clearly overqualified for one could refuse. By now this has changed in theory but the unemployment office usually acts reasonably not sending this type of job offers. Still in theory any job one could bodily do is now legally 'reasonable', i.e. refusal leads to benefit cuts.
Going back to the original topic, the above mentioned change coincided with another. Prostitution is now a legal job. So, in theory, the unemployment agency could offer sex work and cut benefits, if the offer is declined. There were speculations, whether this could be used to enforce a general benefit cut by simply 'offering' it to everyone in the secure knowledge that very few would accept. Iirc this fear was debated in parliament. Of course brothels do not usually seek employees (except maybe janitors) via the job centers but now they legally could.
Would't you have to qualify for a job in order to receive an offer? If a job places you in a serious psychological distress you wouldn't be qualified to do it.*
*scary though: if you are emotionally capable to cope with said job should you be forced to do it?**
**what if it turns out that I can cope with gay sex? I would never voluntarily seek such job but I wouldn't like the idea to choose between being on the streets or provide such services.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on August 13, 2013, 03:33:55 AMAnother thing I saw on TV was an unemployed man who wouldn't apply for jobs at less than he was earning before, and he was getting "Job Seeking Allowance" - should this be allowed or should he be forced into shelf stacking or crop picking etc?
Or perhaps be forced back to the same job at a lower rate of pay? Some of the new unemployment laws that Harper is pushing through suggest that employers will have the freedom to effect massive layoffs, then force unemployed former employees back to work at significantly a lower wage.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 12, 2013, 10:17:46 PM
The question goes to at what point are we able to actually consent? Definitions and legal terms tend to draw hard lines, but the reality is that there is a large space for grey areas, understanding of consequences can happen well before or after the legal age, and in the case of prostitution, at what point can we say that poverty and/or lack of alternatives becomes coercion? I certainly can see how the more unemployment you have in a society relates with how ubiquitous prostitution can be, but other considerations apply, if you can get a lower paying/physically straining job instead do you have a choice?
I contemplate sexual ethics quite frequently, and tend to fret about questions at the other end of this argument. Where is the threshold of consent, and do things that lower the threshold of consent partially or fully negate consent? It's generally recognized that having sex with someone too drunk to consent is wrong (and illegal), but at what BAC is one legally too drunk to consent?
At what point does cultural/social/peer coercion or lack of sexual education negate or reduce the ability to freely consent or decline? If someone isn't fully informed of the potential consequences of sex, can they adequately consent to the act? If consent is based on falsehoods presented by the other party, is it still consent? I assume 'consenting adults' in the usual sense for these questions. What is considered coercion? Seduction is the process of manipulating another person to want to have sex with the seducer; does seduction reduce the threshold of consent?
These are good questions.
IMHO there is no set blood alcohol count that would negate consent, since different people have different tolerances for alcohol. The main question is: did the party in question fully know what was going on and agree to participate? I myself have found myself in a situation where I was inebriated and the other party was suggesting sex, and I still had the wits to say no and get the heck out of there as gracefully as possible. I have found it to be wise to be aware of what's happening in any situation enough to know how to get out of it if it gets out of hand. If I get too foggy I will pour out the rest of my drink and steer away from the booze.
I know I have said this before, but when I lost my virginity at age sixteen to my steady 18 year old boyfriend of over a year, I had had a full sexual education through the public schools and was not drunk. However, I was not really ready. I believed that I would lose my boyfriend if I did not go all the way with him. This was statutory rape, even though I consented. I did not regret it and was not traumatized. The only thing it robbed me of was the experience of truly and wholeheartedly giving myself to the one I loved when I was ready to do so. BUT- I think a lot of girls lose their virginity this way. So was I whoring myself for the payment of love or was I used by a guy who said he loved me? Neither of those sound very nice, but it happens all the time and it's not the end of the world. I am glad we used condoms and avoided disease and unwanted pregnancy.
One problem I have with young girls selling their bodies is that old creepy guys are buying them. If an old creepy guy is renting a fourteen year old downtown and then coming home and looking at your teenaged daughter, that's ultra creepy. It's the same problem with porn. It's feeding a social disease.
Quote from: Opsa on August 19, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
If an old creepy guy is renting a fourteen year old downtown and then coming home and looking at your teenaged daughter, that's ultra creepy.
Isn't that a pimping problem rather than a consent problem? If a girl isn't psychologically ready to do such a job (and I'd say that it is very hard for a young person to be ready for such thing) then she isn't able to consent, therefore she shouldn't do it and she should be protected by the state to prevent such circumstance, but pimping, while related to the problem isn't the same problem, any form of coercion should be illegal regardless of age or gender.
The grey area comes when the person in question has some clue about what (s)he is about to do and has a level of choice, while at the same time there are economical pressures to do so, or not that many jobs available, or labor intensive jobs that pay worse, etc.
---
I remember a number of articles I read in the newspaper before I moved to the States, that related the awful conditions of sex workers in Spain, and how many of these women were from Latin America, with promises of better pay and -allegedly- different jobs. At the beginning the stories were about sex slavery and so on, but as more info was dug, it was clear that the overwhelming majority of women knew that they were going to be sex workers, expected better working conditions, and didn't want to go back to Colombia, IOW, they knew what kind of job they were expected to do, and they chose to do that job, what they didn't choose was the abusive conditions in which they were expected to perform that job. To complete the picture many of their families didn't want them back, but to send money back. That's where things become uncomfortable, yes, they chose to be prostitutes, but the economic conditions under which they lived meant that the only way to get a 'good' [paying] job was to prostitute themselves. Technically they were free to choose (and indeed many other women chose not to become prostitutes) but there was a level of pressure that steered them in that direction.
Quote from: Opsa on August 19, 2013, 07:14:19 PM
One problem I have with young girls selling their bodies is that old creepy guys are buying them. If an old creepy guy is renting a fourteen year old downtown and then coming home and looking at your teenaged daughter, that's ultra creepy.
I find the former much creepier than the latter, actually. The issue is the act, regardless of where money changes hands. While there are hypothetically ethical ways to carry out the sex trade (prostitution or pornography), IMHO the majority of these industries are not carried out ethically, and it's not easy for the end consumer to sort things out.
I feel that it is the product (i.e. the prostitute or pornographic "model") that doesn't have things sorted out. Often they are on drugs, it is also said that they come from bad homes and are promised lots o'love and money by the pimps, who are only using them as tools through which to make money. Clearly it is the pimps and pornographers who profit from this stuff. The prostitute may choose to become a prostitute over living in a bad home and suffering from poverty, but it is not much of a choice. Surely if she was offered a fashion modelling job she would choose that over prostitution. The money is better, the social status is better, and there is less imminent risk of bodily harm, disease and unwanted pregnancy.
Who really chooses to clean out the portable toilets for a living? Which would you choose, if your choices were cleaning porta-potties or prostitution? Who really chooses to work at McDonald's, or as a maid at a motel?
If I had no other option except to work at McDonald's in order to bring home food for my kid, I would work at McDonald's. I would be a prostitute for McDonald's. It wouldn't be a choice of career, it would be a choice of living or not living.
But the thing is that not every prostitute, nor every situation are the same.
There is the boy/girl sexually abused that becomes a prostitute when older (or in the worse cases right away).
There is the chronically poor who sees it as the only way out.
There is the drug addict who can only pay his/her habit that way.
There's the lucky few that having other options chose to do that job (usually upper middle class).
And there's the one who rationally concludes that making $100 for less than an hour's worth of effort is better than working 8 hours at $8.50 in the local Mickey D's.
Many (mostly) women working as prostitutes would not starve if they don't work as prostitutes but they clearly have a good economical incentive to do so, which begs the question, are they able to consent?
I can't believe I looked this up, but according to Wiki Answers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_do_prostitutes_make_per_year&view=classic):
"Well depending on where they are located and how many clients they have they can gross anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000 a year. But take note that usually prostitutes have pimps so they would only get a percentage of what they make in a day, and also most of the prostitutes have drug addictions so half if not all will go to there drug habits."
On this website (http://nanowrimo.org/forums/reference-desk/threads/85906) it says: (slightly edited for content)
"What I've heard is twenty to fifty for oral and fifty to a hundred for sex, maybe with extra money for w/o a condom, yeah. As for how much a night, how desperate is your character, and how long will s/he stay out? How busy is the area? If she's blowing another person every half an hour and staying out all night, she might be making five hundred dollars a night, more accounting for when she's (having sex) instead. Prostitution is not actually low-paying, but many street walkers are drug addicts due to environment and high rates of trafficking, and therefore spend a lot of their money on such things. Pimps or domesic abusers may take large amounts of a prostitute's income, and others are supporting their families."
You can also read Three Prostitutes Talk About Their Life on the Streets (http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2012/Nov13/Interview3Prostitutes.html).
There may be exceptions, but none of these sound like anything I would call "consent". They sound horribly messed up.
High class whores disapprove of the term prostitute and always have. Even in classical antiquity there was a huge class divide between the high class 'companions' that got hired for more than just their sexual talents and the poor women that had to sell their bodies to anyone willing to pay (no different in China or Japan).
That is an incredibly diverse profession, from the low end street walkers, the mid range escorts, and the high end companions, each with different backgrounds, working conditions and issues, plus the fact that what could be endemic in a country can be quite different crossing the border or boarding up a plane. Decriminalization, legalization and/or regulation make a difference, in the same way the economic conditions of the country and the availability of jobs also affect both sex and not sex jobs.
Quote from: Opsa on August 20, 2013, 07:31:31 PM
I can't believe I looked this up, but according to Wiki Answers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_do_prostitutes_make_per_year&view=classic):
"Well depending on where they are located and how many clients they have they can gross anywhere from $30,000 to $200,000 a year. But take note that usually prostitutes have pimps so they would only get a percentage of what they make in a day, and also most of the prostitutes have drug addictions so half if not all will go to there drug habits."
On this website (http://nanowrimo.org/forums/reference-desk/threads/85906) it says: (slightly edited for content)
"What I've heard is twenty to fifty for oral and fifty to a hundred for sex, maybe with extra money for w/o a condom, yeah. As for how much a night, how desperate is your character, and how long will s/he stay out? How busy is the area? If she's blowing another person every half an hour and staying out all night, she might be making five hundred dollars a night, more accounting for when she's (having sex) instead. Prostitution is not actually low-paying, but many street walkers are drug addicts due to environment and high rates of trafficking, and therefore spend a lot of their money on such things. Pimps or domesic abusers may take large amounts of a prostitute's income, and others are supporting their families."
You can also read Three Prostitutes Talk About Their Life on the Streets (http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2012/Nov13/Interview3Prostitutes.html).
There may be exceptions, but none of these sound like anything I would call "consent". They sound horribly messed up.
I quoted myself because I believe you went off topic, slightly. Here the "classier" ones are called "Call Girls" because they are called on the phone rather than having to walk the streets, but they are in no way considered high class by other women. "High Class Hooker"is another term, but let's face it, we are not talking about high class.
I wonder how much men buy into the myth of the happy hooker. I don't think that most sex workers are all that happy. I believe that most women love to have sex, but with the person of their choice, and with love attached. Without these things it is less of a joyful thing and more of a chore, and a thing for which to be ashamed.
I can clean a toilet at home with love in my heart because I know I am making the world a little nicer for my loved ones, but if I have to clean it for money, it isn't a bit nice. It is just for money.
The subject is whether or not sex for pay is considered "consent". I want people to read what these women are saying.
What I wanted to say is that a certain subgroup for which one has to assume consent tries to separate itself from the others where this is an important topic.
I see. So the higher priced group attempts to remove itself from the stigma of the other.
Social stigma and risk are the things that bother the most the lucky few that have more of a choice going in the profession, and I would argue that every single sex worker, even those that don't have physical contact (phone sex, cam sex, strippers in certain locales) would love to avoid that stigma. I've read a couple of interviews with prostitutes and for a fair percentage it is just a job, and their bigger complaints are precisely the risks attached (violence, pimping, etc) and the heavy social stigma that goes with it.
Quote from: Opsa on August 20, 2013, 05:43:58 PM
(i.e. the prostitute....................Often they are on drugs,
I got pilloried for saying exactly that on HAF. Like I was told it was a generalisation and where was the proof. I am still hopping mad.
I wonder, particularly for street walkers, (who wants to walk around scantily dressed in the snow?) funding a drug haabit, - if the drug habit is "causing" the prostitution, is that consent? ie. is it the drug habit they are consenting to? ---- they could steel and rob as an alternative, plenty of druggies do.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 20, 2013, 08:15:20 PM
That is an incredibly diverse profession, from the low end street walkers, the mid range escorts, and the high end companions,
diverse, just like banking really
Street walkers are overwhelmingly drug addicted, but the higher you go up the scale, drug use mimics the use of their patrons (more pot in the middle, more pills and coke in the high).
Again, my point is that the whole thing is not clear cut, plus the problem of getting hard data, specially in places where prostitution is illegal and/or discretion is part of the business.
i wonder if this is at heart a question about the scope of free will ( assuming such exists) rather than consent as such.
Quote from: En_Route on August 24, 2013, 04:42:18 PM
i wonder if this is at heart a question about the scope of free will ( assuming such exists) rather than consent as such.
I've been thinking about free will lately.
It's mostly an illusion-- who has the free will to do exactly as they please, without a single limit of any kind?
Nobody has that kind of freedom-- there are other people, always, which causes limits to come into existence, simply because these others exist.
Moreover, there are physical limits too-- gravity, energy, the limits of our own physical selves-- all come into play, restricting our brain's desires.
So in one sense, we have very little actual free will.
And what little that we do have? Is often even more restricted by the circumstances we find ourselves in.
So.
The "free will" to choose a vanilla chocolate coffee or one that is simply plain black? (both have their respective appeal) Should **not** be taken for granted.
That may be the only real free will we get to exercise for the day...
:)
Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on August 24, 2013, 05:40:56 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 24, 2013, 04:42:18 PM
i wonder if this is at heart a question about the scope of free will ( assuming such exists) rather than consent as such.
I've been thinking about free will lately.
It's mostly an illusion-- who has the free will to do exactly as they please, without a single limit of any kind?
Nobody has that kind of freedom-- there are other people, always, which causes limits to come into existence, simply because these others exist.
Moreover, there are physical limits too-- gravity, energy, the limits of our own physical selves-- all come into play, restricting our brain's desires.
So in one sense, we have very little actual free will.
And what little that we do have? Is often even more restricted by the circumstances we find ourselves in.
So.
The "free will" to choose a vanilla chocolate coffee or one that is simply plain black? (both have their respective appeal) Should **not** be taken for granted.
That may be the only real free will we get to exercise for the day...
:)
The concept of free will in tne sense that we bear ultimate tesponsibility for the choices we make In my opinion is a complete illusion. This conclusion came to me as an epiphany epiphany which furnished me with the intellectual. foundation for rejecting Catholicism which I had instinctively revolted against from about age 13. in fact,as I later came to realise ,such philosophical byways are not needed to justify a wholesale rejection of all strains of theism.
Quote from: En_RouteThe concept of free will in tne sense that we bear ultimate tesponsibility for the choices we make In my opinion is a complete illusion. This conclusion came to me as an epiphany epiphany which furnished me with the intellectual. foundation for rejecting Catholicism which I had instinctively revolted against from about age 13. in fact,as I later came to realise ,such philosophical byways are not needed to justify a wholesale rejection of all strains of theism.
Something like that was where I realized I would not be completing the diaconate program. In a discussion/lecture on the 'nature of sin' and the resulting full culpability for all thoughts, words, and actions, I brought up my grandfather's last stage of illness. The combination of debilitating terminal illness, pain, and
medication changed his personality. Was he 'sinning' when he angrily snapped at my grandmother? A little hemming and hawing, which meant, "Yes, he is, but it sounds bad to come right out and say so."
QuoteThe "free will" to choose a vanilla chocolate coffee or one that is simply plain black? (both have their respective appeal) Should **not** be taken for granted.
That may be the only real free will we get to exercise for the day...
Where then is my free will choice for no coffee at all? ;)
Quote from: En_Route on August 24, 2013, 07:41:42 PM
The concept of free will in tne sense that we bear ultimate tesponsibility for the choices we make In my opinion is a complete illusion.
I've always said that if whether or not we have free will or not, it's most practical to act as if we do have free will. If we don't actually have free will, it's no loss. If we actually have free will but choose to let life make our decisions for us, we've given up the chance for free will. Of course, it's your choice. ;)
I think we do bear responsibility for the choices we make in this life, as experienced in this life. How we behave has a very significant influence on how our lives play out. All that's judging you are other humans; if you have a close human connection with the people around you, they will understand when you act unacceptably under exceptional circumstances. Hence the value of making forgiving others a virtue.
I have no concerns of any judgement after this life. The story's too effective a tool for social control for it to have valid origins, IMHO. I used to interpret hell as separation from God after death (mid-teens, and listening to Jethro Tull's Aqualung a lot), but now I find that laughable. According to my personal understanding, we're inseparable from the whole shebang once we're gone. In the strictly physical sense, all the stuff that we are will eventually be dispersed and be recombined in other matter and in other life-forms. Think of how many other forms the matter in your body must have been in before it was you. Most of our food is of vegetable origin (perhaps after one or two incarnations as animals), which means the nutrients were taken from the soil and the air. These are largely substrates that contain well-dispersed old nutrients. You can look further out if you want, too. As has been discussed here previously, we are literally made of exploded stars.
Without going that far, I'd say that -strictly speaking- free will is a commodity proportional to wealth, conditions and/or knowledge, say, the quality and flavors of ice cream you choose will depend on those available for you to purchase at any given time, so I can buy chocolate, vanilla, strawberry and down in FL I can get mango and mamey as flavors in the supermarket, but I can't get guava or (even more exotic) feijoa regardless of how much money I have in my pocket. If I really want to get feijoa I have to take a plane to Bogotá where I'll be more likely to find it (and a few years ago I would've had to drive 2-3 hours north to get it). Now if I can't afford a cheap vanilla ice cream or, I don't know that ice cream exists (or how to make it in it's absence) the whole discussion is moot, those choices aren't for me.
Then you have the psychological variables, technically, a battered wife may have the option to leave her abusive husband but she may not be psychologically able to make that choice.
thete is a diffrence I think between the ability to make choices ( which are inevitably constrained to a greater or lesser extent) and free will , which for me is a philosophical construct on the basis of which individuals may be held as ultimately tesponsible for whatever choices they do make, assuming that the choicrs are informed and not made underirrrsistible duress.
The rebutall of that concept of free will is broadly as follows:
1. If the choices people make are not random, their source must lie in the nature or petsonality of the person making them, but it is impossible by definition for a person to be the origin or cause of themselves. everything can be traced back to genes an environment over which we have no control.
2. If choices are random and arbitrary, say quantum- like, then the notion of ultimate responsibility for them would be self- contradictory.
Many philosophers have made this point; Galen Strawson is a modern exponent .
as I have already said, for me this insight debunked the idea of a God who consigned sinners to hell on the basis that they had free will and were thus fully accountable for their sins.
Lively discussions and much food for .... thought.
:)
I, for one, think that we do get to choose a great many things in life, apart from "gimmie a cuppa joe, black".
One of the more subtle areas of free will that was hinted at in the above?
We get to choose how we **react** to life itself. I learned the lessons of your own feelings while training to be a counselor/volunteer for abused kids.
You own your own feelings.
This bit of observational wisdom cannot be stressed enough-- because it's too easy to forget, and to abdicate that ownership to someone else-- several someones.
Since you do own your own feelings, you get to choose how you react in any given situation-- oh, sure, there are examples where this does not seem to be the case, as the feelings involved are overwhelming. Say, a parent-to-child relationship, or a spouse-to-spouse.
But the fact is? Even in these, if you think about it carefully and often enough, you can take control of even these, if you find it needful or desirable to.
So that is a kind of free will that we each have-- but not everyone takes advantage of, and not all the time either.
Take or leave this as you wish--
-- free will, again.
:D
"They can always leave" is one of the sticking points in any free-will argument, I think. First, is is physically possible for a person to leave a given place or situation? Usually the answer is yes, but there are real physical barriers in some cases. Second, does the person have access to transportation if "leaving" implies physical movement? Is there some (place/situation) to go to? Thirdly, will others be negatively affected (e.g.: staying in a very undesirable job or marriage in order to provide for minor children)? Finally, will the pressure from family, friends, the larger culture essentially force the person back in to the original (place/situation)?
Sometimes the available option(s) turns out to be the same (place/situation) with a different face. The more interlocked the society, the more each person's choices are shaped by other people choosing around them, in competition with them, and for them.
That all comes back to education/knowledge and money being essential to accessing a wider variety of choices, and choosing ones that are more likely to be better in any sense of the word.
Picking up on what En-Route wrote, I think "choice" is entirely different to "free will" in that "free will" is a philosophical concept. Free will implies complete freedom to make any choice but has nothing to do with the actuality of making a choice.
1. Some things you can do.
2. Some things you could do (but you'll be hard press to do them).
3. Some things you simply can't do.
And there are grey areas in between those three categories. If you have wealth and/or opportunities, you can change your job, or your house, etc. The less wealth, etc, the harder changing those will become. At some point you could do it, but you would incur a significant risk or you would have to pay with a downgrade in your quality of life in one or several aspects. Down that same road there will be a point in which it isn't an option anymore.
It is clear that at 1. you have real choices and the free will to choose among them, and that at 3. you don't have choices and are pretty much forced to endure the situation at hand, the grey area happens in and around 2. where while it is possible to do something it will not be easy, either because of physical or psychological reasons.
Again, 1. and 3. are not in discussion, because we know that in those areas choices can or can't be made. The question is at what point in 2. you lose the ability to choose -both real and perceived- and how it happens.
To get back to prostitution, isn't it also known as white slavery? How much freedom does a slave have? I think that at least some street walkers really are in slavery, as they fear bodily harm will be done to them if they try to escape. Often they have gotten into it young, and haven't had education enough (as Zono implies) to have the skills to escape. Also, if they are addicted to drugs, they are a slave to the substance.
Say you ran away when you were thirteen, to escape abusive parents. You ran to the city where you thought you could somehow hide out. A person who seems nice takes you in, feeds you, gives you a place to sleep and free drugs to ease your pain. Then this person expects you to pay him back for those drugs, once you're hooked. Are you choosing prostitution? As I understand it, this scenario is unfortunately quite common.
For a while I lived in a shady part of town (low rent, I was a freelance artist) and it took me a while to realize that streetwalkers often had casts on their legs. I mean, it was so normal that I realized how creepy it was. I think someone was hurting them.
For some reason I remember a time when my sister and I were riding through a rough part of Washington, D.C. Two young hookers were standing on a corner, and my sister stared at them (she later said she was checking out their daring fashions). One of them yelled at her angrily, "What are you looking at, whore?" and scared the heck out of her. Luckily, the light changed and we were out of there. It is strange that she used her profession as an insult to my sister.
I get your point although white slavery is more referred to women that are literally locked, without option to leave, supposedly paying with their work for their food/shelter plus the move from their original countries (I've read of cases like those for Latin American women in Spain, Russian women in Germany and the Nederlands, and Chinese/Asian women in the US). Happening yes, although IIRC the overall percentage is in single digits compared to the total of women in the business.
A woman in the street may be under psychological duress (plus the duress of addiction) even if she can take her things an leave at any given moment. I would consider the situation a dark grey, but not black as occasionally options appear from both social workers and non-for-profits/churches trying to get them out of the streets in most countries.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 26, 2013, 01:18:04 AM
1. Some things you can do.
2. Some things you could do (but you'll be hard press to do them).
3. Some things you simply can't do.
And there are grey areas in between those three categories. If you have wealth and/or opportunities, you can change your job, or your house, etc. The less wealth, etc, the harder changing those will become. At some point you could do it, but you would incur a significant risk or you would have to pay with a downgrade in your quality of life in one or several aspects. Down that same road there will be a point in which it isn't an option anymore.
It is clear that at 1. you have real choices and the free will to choose among them, and that at 3. you don't have choices and are pretty much forced to endure the situation at hand, the grey area happens in and around 2. where while it is possible to do something it will not be easy, either because of physical or psychological reasons.
Again, 1. and 3. are not in discussion, because we know that in those areas choices can or can't be made. The question is at what point in 2. you lose the ability to choose -both real and perceived- and how it happens.
For some of us, it is equally clear. that at 1 you have real choices but no free will in the sense of being truly accountable for the choice you make ( for reasons already explained)
I'm not entirely certain, are you saying that if I'm driving my car, choose to run a red light and as a consequence I cause an accident I'm not accountable for it?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 27, 2013, 01:31:31 AM
I'm not entirely certain, are you saying that if I'm driving my car, choose to run a red light and as a consequence I cause an accident I'm not accountable for it?
Yes, in the sense that you bear no "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment) over which you had no control, or else it was completely arbitrary. You will have legal accountability of course, which will be factored into most people's decision- making with the consequence they will probably not jump red lights.
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 12:33:21 AMYes, in the sense that you bear no "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment) over which you had no control, or else it was completely arbitrary.
I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?
I know we are supposed to be humble and tolerant here at the TFM, but I can't suspend judgement that skipping a red light is immoral - oh, wrong thread, I thought we were talking about prostitutes :mrgreen:
Quote from: pieces o nine on August 29, 2013, 03:17:05 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 12:33:21 AMYes, in the sense that you bear no "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment) over which you had no control, or else it was completely arbitrary.
I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?
The ifea is that behaviour must be either caused or uncaused.
Lets see, you imply that when an individual runs or not that red light (s)he is doing it due to a number of psychological pressures that, if properly understood, would predict the decision in question? Some of those pressures would be the capacity for delaying reward, empathy, and the adherence to social norms, plus the immediate pressures of the individual in question at the time of the deed.
If I understand your argument, you are implying a level if psychological determinism (I have a psychoanalyst friend that argues that is the case) that pretty much would place all meaningful decisions (and many trivial ones) outside of the realm of free will.
Perhaps because I find determinism to be a bit uncomfortable or perhaps because of those occasions in which the balance can be tipped either way, I have the feeling that, while the main hypothesis may have some validity, its by no means absolute and that free choices can be made, even if not too frequently.
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 06:18:45 AM
Quote from: pieces o nine on August 29, 2013, 03:17:05 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 12:33:21 AMYes, in the sense that you bear no "moral" responsibility; either its something you were bound to do as a result of factors ( principally genes, early environment) over which you had no control, or else it was completely arbitrary.
I'm not sure I follow the second part of this?
The idea is that behaviour must be either caused or uncaused.
I very rarely find that two-valued logic like that is either useful, unbiased, or reflective of the real world.
This is absolutely
not one of those times.
I dislike being 'unTaddy', but your post suggests to me that you could benefit from the application of a clue-by-four to your head! :o ::) :P
I agree with Mero (except the upside-the-head bit, which I think was a bit harsh).
I believe that a person chooses to run a red light or not. It is a choice, a very selfish one as it risks the safety of others, and the person in question is responsible for that choice.
Quote from: Opsa on August 29, 2013, 08:37:55 PM
I agree with Mero (except the upside-the-head bit, which I think was a bit harsh).
I believe that a person chooses to run a red light or not. It is a choice, a very selfish one as it risks the safety of others, and the person in question is responsible for that choice.
You are right, it was a bit harsh. I apologize to En_Route. Have some cake, old chap... :victoria_sponge:
Thank you for the feedback, beloved sibling... :)
I think the belief in the responsibility of human agents for their actions is highly adaptive. Formost people it may seem self- evident, and in general those who espouse it here have tended ( with respect) to simply assert its existence as an article of faith. Butnthe fact temains that we cannot create ourselves from scratch and the beginning must either dictate what follows ( in a universe of rigid cause and effect) or else the sequence between the begiining and what follows is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of serendipity.
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 10:46:55 PM
I think the belief in the responsibility of human agents for their actions is highly adaptive.
I believe that humans are highly adaptive to assign responsibility to external agents...
Quote from: En_Route on August 29, 2013, 10:46:55 PM
I think the belief in the responsibility of human agents for their actions is highly adaptive. Formost people it may seem self- evident, and in general those who espouse it here have tended ( with respect) to simply assert its existence as an article of faith. Butnthe fact temains that we cannot create ourselves from scratch and the beginning must either dictate what follows ( in a universe of rigid cause and effect) or else the sequence between the begiining and what follows is to a greater or lesser extent a matter of serendipity.
I understand your argument from a philosophical perspective, especially with respect to the sense of 'responsibility' in context of post-life divine judgement as referred to in earlier posts. I don't disagree with the principles for the purposes of the conclusions reached. However, I don't feel that this argument is practically applicable in the context of inter-human interactions.
With respect to judgement by human agents in our normal human lifespan, in some cases and/or to some degree moral responsibility is irrelevant. If you run a red light and are caught, you face judgement and responsibility in the philosophical sense is a moot point. Law are set as a method of social control, and we generally are programmed to avoid unpleasant outcomes such as those which sometimes result from breaking the law. I don't want to open up a conversation on the penal system etc. at this moment, but speaking very broadly, if someone is exhibiting behaviour which is socially unacceptable and has been legislated against, the punishment can be viewed as a method of either reducing re-occurrence of that behaviour by attaching a disincentive to it, or (in the case of jail time) removing that person from society for a period of time to prevent re-occurrence.
I personally believe that there is value in placing some consideration on an offender's personal life history and socioeconomic circumstances during sentencing, where a better long-term outcome is likely to result from doing so, but I don't think that clear alternatives to standard sentencing procedures are available in most settings. I've read about some prospective successes in certain populations where socioeconomic conditions are the predominant factors in criminality (Canada's First Nations populations, for example).
David Eagleman has some interesting perspectives on neurolaw, which considers how neurological differences and physiological conditions change one's culpability. These same factors can influence consent, IMHO.
That's interesting, and I get it. Another thing that may change one's reaction would be personal experience. If you have ever nearly been crashed into by someone running a red light, or have had a relative or friend injured or killed by someone running a red light, your conscientiousness about running lights will be heightened. I personally have been alarmed by people running lights, and so I am careful not to run them, myself. I also would be less forgiving of anyone running one.
...or stop signs; it stands to reason that any non-psychopathic* individual should learn this the hard way if unable to learn it otherwise. I imagine that (and this is a full guess) the likelihood of someone running a red light (or stop sign) grows if they are male and between 16 and 25, which would imply that testosterone would be a driver of such behavior, yet I wouldn't say that that exonerates responsibility from the driver.
*psychopaths have a very hard time learning from their mistakes, due to problems with the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 31, 2013, 05:14:51 PM
I imagine that (and this is a full guess) the likelihood of someone running a red light (or stop sign) grows if they are male and between 16 and 25, which would imply that testosterone would be a driver of such behavior, yet I wouldn't say that that exonerates responsibility from the driver.
Testosterone and/or cat litter. There is some evidence that infection with
Toxoplasma gondii can change human behaviour; specifically, it tends to encourage risk-taking behaviour and is correlated with traffic accidents in young males (infected rats get fearless and will openly approach cats).