Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Consenting to a risk forfeits one's legitimate grounds fo... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Consenting to a risk forfeits one's legitimate grounds for complaint when the risked harm materializes

    Moral ResponsibilityRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A boxer who consents to a boxing match has knowingly and willingly risked bodily harm
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Having one's nose broken in a boxing match is a genuine harm
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One cannot fairly complain about a harm one consented to risk
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consent to a risk is not consent to every instance of that risk, particularly those arising from negligence or rule-violation by the other party.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The boxer consents to harms within the rules of the sport, not to harms caused by, e.g., a concealed weapon or a referee's corrupt inaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, consent to a category of risk does not extinguish complaint when the specific harm arises from a non-consented-to cause within that category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joel Feinberg's distinction between 'bare consent' and 'valid consent' requires that consent be fully informed, uncoerced, and competent to be morally forfeiting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Structural coercion—such as economic necessity driving workers to accept dangerous conditions—can render apparent consent insufficiently voluntary to extinguish complaint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Where the asymmetry of power between parties undermines genuine voluntariness, consent does not carry the moral weight required to forfeit legitimate grievance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityRights & Liberty

    Related

    A boxer who consents to a boxing match has knowingly and willingly risked bodily...Consent to a risk is not consent to every instance of that risk, particularly th...Having one's nose broken in a boxing match is a genuine harmJoel Feinberg's distinction between 'bare consent' and 'valid consent' requires ...
    +5 moreShow less
    One cannot fairly complain about a harm one consented to riskStructural coercion—such as economic necessity driving workers to accept dangero...The boxer consents to harms within the rules of the sport, not to harms caused b...Therefore, consent to a category of risk does not extinguish complaint when the ...Where the asymmetry of power between parties undermines genuine voluntariness, c...

    Similar

    When one has knowingly and willingly risked something harmful, one can...81%One cannot fairly complain about a harm one consented to risk81%Disregarding warnings constitutes forfeiture of the right to protectio...78%A harm involves damage to an interest to which a person has a right.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Fourth, though Mill often focuses simply on harm, it appears that his real focus is on non-consensual harm (I 2; see Saunders 2016). He endorses the maxim volenti non fit injuria, which he glosses in Utilitarianism as the doctrine that “that is not unjust which is done with the consent of the person who is supposed to be hurt by it” (U V 28). It is not that one cannot be hurt by something one has consented to or freely risked. Rather, when one has knowingly and willing risked something harmful,
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit