Can consent exist with imbalances of power?

[Aurora Novus]

Specifically in this case I was discussing the issue of master/slave relationships, but we can always open up the topic to be a bit broader. Anyway, let me start off with a response.

Let's say though that the law does not allow for slaves to be freed. OR lets say that, like during the era of American slavery, the law was corrupt, and it wasn't uncommon for free individuals to be written off as runaway slaves, enslaved once more, and shipped away.




Why could we not say this is consent for a permanent change though? Like, say, consenting to give an organ to someone else. It's a permanenrt change. You'll never get that specific organ back, even if you decide afterwards you want it back.

We could simply say that consent to be a slave is a permanent form of consent.

For someone who claims to get annoyed by feelings in discussions, you sure are focused on a lot of kinky sexual stuff. Start your own thread or drop the topic, kay?

Haha, only the second point was sexual really. The first point does have some relevance to American slavery actually. I mean, say there was a situation where an individual owned a slave purely out of fear that they would be hurt or falsly reenslaved for some reason. Is it not believeable that, in a culture where free blacks were murdered or made slaves again under corrupt government, that someone would find security and comfort in being, on paper, the slave of someone they loved? Why should this invalidate their love for the individual in question? It would provide protection. Less would dare kill another man's property, and the law would not come and steal a man's property to give it to someone else. That would only happen if they were free.

It seems to me that it's entirely possible for consensual relationships between slavemasters and slaves to exist. The notion that the slave should be free in such a situation could be seen as just idealism, while remaining a slave is a practical solution to the problem of the threat presented by society and being free. It just seems like starry-eyed romanticism. "If you love someone, set them free." No, if you love someone, do whatever you two agree is necessary to protect yourselves and your relationship.

[The 54th Squadron]

No, consention to anything is not a permanent form unless you specifically keep it that way.

[Sun Wukong]

It can. It's just almost impossible to tell. Which is why these imbalances do and should make people nervous even in less extreme scenarios.

[Republic of Minerva]

Sure it can - if the weaker end still has free will and self ownership. Slaves do not have the latter, and their former is often broke because of that, making every contract one under duress.

[Aurora Novus]

Sure it can - if the weaker end still has free will and self ownership. Slaves do not have the latter, and their former is often broke because of that, making every contract one under duress.

How does this apply to the scenario I've put forward in the OP?

[Shilya]

Haha, only the second point was sexual really. The first point does have some relevance to American slavery actually. I mean, say there was a situation where an individual owned a slave purely out of fear that they would be hurt or falsly reenslaved for some reason. Is it not believeable that, in a culture where free blacks were murdered or made slaves again under corrupt government, that someone would find security and comfort in being, on paper, the slave of someone they loved? Why should this invalidate their love for the individual in question? It would provide protection. Less would dare kill another man's property, and the law would not come and steal a man's property to give it to someone else. That would only happen if they were free.

But that's not real slavery and it won't be actual slavery in practice, because the guy never agreed to being a slave, he only agreed to you having a paper that says he's a slave.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

The ethical rule I generally follow is "If you can't say no, you can't say yes." In other words, consent is only valid if refusal is a serious option. As for "permanent consent" or similar, consent is dependent on will, and will must be maintained continuously to be valid. Of course, what we're talking about here is drastic power imbalances at the interpersonal level. Minor power imbalances, such as between boss and employee, can be resolved through ethical protocols such as the relationship disclosure doctrine. On the other hand, power imbalances at the systemic level do not necessarily preclude consent. While systemic imbalances do indeed affect interpersonal affairs, they do not scale perfectly down to the interpersonal level. Even in a hypothetical society where Class A was completely dominant and Class B was a total slave class, an individual member of Class A and an individual member of Class B could theoretically go "off the grid" away from the institutions propping up that society, rejecting its norms and having an egalitarian relationship in secret. As long as the wishes of both parties in this relationship were respected in earnest, consent would be ethically valid.

[Aurora Novus]

Haha, only the second point was sexual really. The first point does have some relevance to American slavery actually. I mean, say there was a situation where an individual owned a slave purely out of fear that they would be hurt or falsly reenslaved for some reason. Is it not believeable that, in a culture where free blacks were murdered or made slaves again under corrupt government, that someone would find security and comfort in being, on paper, the slave of someone they loved? Why should this invalidate their love for the individual in question? It would provide protection. Less would dare kill another man's property, and the law would not come and steal a man's property to give it to someone else. That would only happen if they were free.

But that's not real slavery and it won't be actual slavery in practice, because the guy never agreed to being a slave, he only agreed to you having a paper that says he's a slave.

Yes, but that's rather the point. Legally, one person still holds extreme power over another. One person, in the eyes of the law, is literally another person's property.

The question is, within this legal power structure, can consent be given to be in a relationship? The situation assumes that the person has legal power, but does not, nor would they ever, consider acting upon it. The question isn't whether or not consent can be given while acting upon that legal authority, it only asks whether or not consent can be given while that legal authority exists. It's real enough to be slavery, because in the eyes of the law, it's slavery. You don't need the rampant abuses of Southern slavery to be considered a slave.

[Republic of Minerva]

Sure it can - if the weaker end still has free will and self ownership. Slaves do not have the latter, and their former is often broke because of that, making every contract one under duress.

How does this apply to the scenario I've put forward in the OP?

For the slave at least - it's a contract made under duress. It doesn't matter what utilitarian benefit one of the parties get - slavery is still immoral. As long as one's labor is not fully owned by themself, he is a slave in one form or another. If freedom is threatening to the slave, then they can voluntarily give up some or all of the aspects of their freedom. They don't need to become slaves in the literal sense. Otherwise no consent is given if the option is not there.

[Aurora Novus]

For the slave at least - it's a contract made under duress. It doesn't matter what utilitarian benefit one of the parties get - slavery is still immoral.

Debatable, given the context.

As long as one's labor is not fully owned by themself, he is a slave in one form or another. If freedom is threatening to the slave, then they can voluntarily give up some or all of the aspects of their freedom. They don't need to become slaves in the literal sense. Otherwise no consent is given if the option is not there.

Explain the bolded, and explain how the first part of it somehow contradicts the scenario I've put forward.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

???? Is this a sexual question?
If it is, then let's get 2 things clear about M/S relationships, or any sort of BDSM fantasy/roleplay scenario.
1. It is all fantasy - neither believe that they are truly a master and a slave, and if they do it is not a BDSM relationship it is abuse.
2. In these relationships the "slave" is ultimately the one with the power. Subs are always the ones who call the shots, when you get into it.

Yes, it is consensual. If it's not, then it's not a relationship.

[Aurora Novus]

???? Is this a sexual question?
If it is, then let's get 2 things clear about M/S relationships, or any sort of BDSM fantasy/roleplay scenario.
1. It is all fantasy - neither believe that they are truly a master and a slave, and if they do it is not a BDSM relationship it is abuse.
2. In these relationships the "slave" is ultimately the one with the power. Subs are always the ones who call the shots, when you get into it.

Yes, it is consensual. If it's not, then it's not a relationship.

This isn't a sexual question. Well, at least the scenario in my OP isn't. I'm talking about literal master/slave relations. It was an offshoot of a discussion going on in the Confederate Battle Flag topic.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

???? Is this a sexual question?
If it is, then let's get 2 things clear about M/S relationships, or any sort of BDSM fantasy/roleplay scenario.
1. It is all fantasy - neither believe that they are truly a master and a slave, and if they do it is not a BDSM relationship it is abuse.
2. In these relationships the "slave" is ultimately the one with the power. Subs are always the ones who call the shots, when you get into it.

Yes, it is consensual. If it's not, then it's not a relationship.

This isn't a sexual question. Well, at least the scenario in my OP isn't. I'm talking about literal master/slave relations. It was an offshoot of a discussion going on in the Confederate Battle Flag topic.

Well first of all I wouldn't consider them "relations" in anything but the strictest definition of the word, and second, I don't see how it is possible to give consent when you only have one option. It's like going to the doctor, having the door locked, and he says, "You can either have your arm cut off, or you can have your other arm cut off."

[Aurora Novus]

This isn't a sexual question. Well, at least the scenario in my OP isn't. I'm talking about literal master/slave relations. It was an offshoot of a discussion going on in the Confederate Battle Flag topic.

Well first of all I wouldn't consider them "relations" in anything but the strictest definition of the word, and second, I don't see how it is possible to give consent when you only have one option. It's like going to the doctor, having the door locked, and he says, "You can either have your arm cut off, or you can have your other arm cut off."

I'm not certain you've actually read my OP, because that's not what the scenario I've put forth is like at all. The scenario put forth is one wherein two individuals exist within a society much like American slave society, where people can be divided up into two classes. Class A (whites), who dominate the society, and Class B (black), who are almost exclusively enslaved by Class A, with the exception of some free individuals. Even then however, it is not uncommon for free individuals to be wrongfully accused as being mere runaway slaves, and therefore unjustly shackled and sent back into slavery. Also, some of Class A resents the free members of Class B, and regularly commits acts of violence against them.

Given this, these two individuals, who hold romantic feelings for each other, stand at a crossroad. One is a member of Class A, and one of Class B. They could have their relationship, openly, with the individual from Class B as free citizen of the society in question. This runs the afformentioned risks however, that being threat of violence and threat of being seperated from their lover, and sent elsewhere back into slavery. It can be assumed as well that such an individual would be a hightened target of violence, as well as the member of Class A, given that such relationships would most likely be looked down upon by many.

Their other option would be to register the member of Class B as the owned property of the member of Class A. This would largely prevent the fears and threats plauging the couple, as there would be no threat of unjust seperation, nor as large a threat of violence, as their relationship could now carry on in secret if they so chose, with few, if any questions asked. The option in the long run would provide the couple with more safety and security in their relationship. However, while the member of Class A would not act upon their legal power to treat the member of Class B as property (at least, so they say), that power would none the less be vested in them, as ordained by that society and their government.

The question is, assuming the couple chooses to go with the latter option due to the safety it provides, does the mere existence of that legal authority, whether or not it's acted upon, invalidate their relationship by rendering non-consensual? Or can consent still exist within such an imbalance of power? Do you view the relationship as merely being two lovers doing what they have to do to get by, and declare that consent can exist in such an unbalanced situation of power? Or do you render it invalid and demand that both lovers put themselves at increased risk, just to satisfy this concept of "consent"? Such is the dilema I have put forth.

[Christiaanistan]

The truth is that there will always be imbalances of power.

On average, women earn somewhat less than men. It's a little bit less the case today than it was 40 years ago, but the male, in many cases, still tends to have greater financial leverage than the female. In fact, 40 years ago or even 60 years ago, women had relatively little leverage in society at all.

The consequences were just what you would expect. Some married men treated their wives like people, and they encouraged their wives to become educated and pursue their interests. I know a guy in his 70's who tells me how his dad helped his mom open a bookstore back in the 1930's because it was the one thing she had always wanted to do. It never made very much money, but she got to do the service to society that she had really meant to, which is what really mattered. If you talk to old people, you'll hear a lot of stories like this.

On the other hand, the ones who won't talk to you about it are the ones who grew up talking about how their dads beat their wives, and the problem of men actually raping their wives was so rampant that the states didn't even try to punish it. It was just a fact of life that "marriage implied consent," even though women were living in a society in which they had few alternative opportunities and divorce was a lot more difficult and costly than it is today. People talk about how marriages don't last now as long as they used to. Well, that's because women don't have to tolerate abusive husbands or intolerable situations anymore. The high divorce rates are just starting to better reflect just what percentage of people are competent at being good marital partners, and the rates are just going to get higher until people learn to behave better.

There can be consent in cases of a power-imbalance, but it can only happen in a scenario in which the one who has the greater leverage opts not to exploit or abuse it. Let's take, as a counter-example, the case of a really evil employer. You might have been in situations in which you were pressed into doing something that went against your moral conscience based on the fact that your boss could live without you, but if you had lost your job over insubordination or "not being a team-player" or whatever, then there went your mortgage. There went your car, which you have to pay a lease on to keep driving it. There went your future. In your mind, you could hear the gurgle of your life--and your dreams of living a "1%er lifestyle"--being flushed down the toilet. If you let yourself be bullies like this instead of standing up for yourself, then that probably had a long-term impact on your sense of self-worth.

On the other hand, you may have also had employers that empowered you and made you feel like you were really an equal partner in a business relationship. Even though you knew, at the back of your mind, that it wasn't an equal situation, you might have spent several months or several years working for a person who just never put you in a situation in which you felt like you were being coerced. Your employer created a culture in which you did have power, but it was built into your organizational culture. They might have even had a program for helping you find a job after being let go. Today, this is considered to be an important part of ethical management.

Well, master/slave relationships work in the same way, but what most people who object to Southern slavery will not admit to is that "consent," in the industrialized Northeast, took the form of "tokenism" and various forms of "wage-slavery," and even agricultural labor in the Midwest didn't work much differently from slavery. People who bash the South for slavery love painting this picture of a utopian North where everybody was "free" and black people were "treated like people." They weren't. The inequality wasn't institutionalized, but it was there as a matter of fact. That's part of why, after the Great Migration, a lot of black people started coming back to the South. It turned out to be a big joke, largely at their expense.

Therefore, I am going to turn this around on you, and I am going to ask you if you think that the absence of a formalized master/slave relationship is a guarantee of consent? Do you think that businesses that actively suppress unions are any better, at heart, than slave-holders? Do you think that states that have so-called "right-to-work" laws are any better than the codes in the Old South that helped keep slavery institutionalized?

Factories in your lovely North actually hired the Mafia to patrol factory floors, and employees would actually be beaten if they got out-of-line. Now, doesn't that sound similar to absentee plantation owners hiring people drive their slaves with a whip? The people of Detroit are urban rednecks, and you have places like that all over the North. They are just as racist as the fucked-up parts of the South. Detroit went to Hell in a handcar because, in Detroit, "being successful" came to be defined as "not having to live in the city" with all the poor black people. They built the commuter routes in such a manner that it contributed to the decline of their inner urban areas, deliberately sending commerce clear away from those areas.

In any kind of relationship, there cannot be genuine "consent" unless those in that relationship treat each other with respect. In absence of respect, a relationship in which there is no power-imbalance just ends, as it should. That's why we try to take measures to try to reduce power-imbalances in any kind of relationship, whether it is between husband and wife or employer and employee. It helps make sure that, if one partner lacks respect for the other, either it can just end, or those in the relationship can work as equals to fix the problem. A relationship in which there is a power-imbalance isn't inherently evil, but we try to discourage them simply because of how, when they do go wrong, they go VERY wrong.

In any case, states that have laws that actively suppress unions should be treated just as the slave-holding states were treated. They should be given a handful of chances to reform on their own, and if not, reform should be forced upon them. Unions are not necessary when employers treat their workers humanely, but the right to form unions is one of the checks and balances that keep employment from resembling slavery.

But consent is not equivalent to the absence of a power-imbalance. Discouraging power-imbalances is just one of the things we do to try to keep there from being non-consensual relationships.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Good OP, OP.

[Lalaki]

Consensual relationship? If someone agreed to follow everything a master said, at the risk of being physically punished, in return for food and shelter, that would be consensual. As long as that person could still leave and was free.

Slaves, by definition, are not free to leave and are "owned." Therefore, consent cannot exist within slavery. Otherwise it would simply be voluntary servitude.

[Aurora Novus]

The truth is that there will always be imbalances of power.

On average, women earn somewhat less than men. It's a little bit less the case today than it was 40 years ago, but the male, in many cases, still tends to have greater financial leverage than the female. In fact, 40 years ago or even 60 years ago, women had relatively little leverage in society at all.

The consequences were just what you would expect. Some married men treated their wives like people, and they encouraged their wives to become educated and pursue their interests. I know a guy in his 70's who tells me how his dad helped his mom open a bookstore back in the 1930's because it was the one thing she had always wanted to do. It never made very much money, but she got to do the service to society that she had really meant to, which is what really mattered. If you talk to old people, you'll hear a lot of stories like this.

On the other hand, the ones who won't talk to you about it are the ones who grew up talking about how their dads beat their wives, and the problem of men actually raping their wives was so rampant that the states didn't even try to punish it. It was just a fact of life that "marriage implied consent," even though women were living in a society in which they had few alternative opportunities and divorce was a lot more difficult and costly than it is today. People talk about how marriages don't last now as long as they used to. Well, that's because women don't have to tolerate abusive husbands or intolerable situations anymore. The high divorce rates are just starting to better reflect just what percentage of people are competent at being good marital partners, and the rates are just going to get higher until people learn to behave better.

There can be consent in cases of a power-imbalance, but it can only happen in a scenario in which the one who has the greater leverage opts not to exploit or abuse it. Let's take, as a counter-example, the case of a really evil employer. You might have been in situations in which you were pressed into doing something that went against your moral conscience based on the fact that your boss could live without you, but if you had lost your job over insubordination or "not being a team-player" or whatever, then there went your mortgage. There went your car, which you have to pay a lease on to keep driving it. There went your future. In your mind, you could hear the gurgle of your life--and your dreams of living a "1%er lifestyle"--being flushed down the toilet. If you let yourself be bullies like this instead of standing up for yourself, then that probably had a long-term impact on your sense of self-worth.

On the other hand, you may have also had employers that empowered you and made you feel like you were really an equal partner in a business relationship. Even though you knew, at the back of your mind, that it wasn't an equal situation, you might have spent several months or several years working for a person who just never put you in a situation in which you felt like you were being coerced. Your employer created a culture in which you did have power, but it was built into your organizational culture. They might have even had a program for helping you find a job after being let go. Today, this is considered to be an important part of ethical management.

Well, master/slave relationships work in the same way, but what most people who object to Southern slavery will not admit to is that "consent," in the industrialized Northeast, took the form of "tokenism" and various forms of "wage-slavery," and even agricultural labor in the Midwest didn't work much differently from slavery. People who bash the South for slavery love painting this picture of a utopian North where everybody was "free" and black people were "treated like people." They weren't. The inequality wasn't institutionalized, but it was there as a matter of fact. That's part of why, after the Great Migration, a lot of black people started coming back to the South. It turned out to be a big joke, largely at their expense.

Therefore, I am going to turn this around on you, and I am going to ask you if you think that the absence of a formalized master/slave relationship is a guarantee of consent? Do you think that businesses that actively suppress unions are any better, at heart, than slave-holders? Do you think that states that have so-called "right-to-work" laws are any better than the codes in the Old South that helped keep slavery institutionalized?

Factories in your lovely North actually hired the Mafia to patrol factory floors, and employees would actually be beaten if they got out-of-line. Now, doesn't that sound similar to absentee plantation owners hiring people drive their slaves with a whip? The people of Detroit are urban rednecks, and you have places like that all over the North. They are just as racist as the fucked-up parts of the South. Detroit went to Hell in a handcar because, in Detroit, "being successful" came to be defined as "not having to live in the city" with all the poor black people. They built the commuter routes in such a manner that it contributed to the decline of their inner urban areas, deliberately sending commerce clear away from those areas.

In any kind of relationship, there cannot be genuine "consent" unless those in that relationship treat each other with respect. In absence of respect, a relationship in which there is no power-imbalance just ends, as it should. That's why we try to take measures to try to reduce power-imbalances in any kind of relationship, whether it is between husband and wife or employer and employee. It helps make sure that, if one partner lacks respect for the other, either it can just end, or those in the relationship can work as equals to fix the problem. A relationship in which there is a power-imbalance isn't inherently evil, but we try to discourage them simply because of how, when they do go wrong, they go VERY wrong.

In any case, states that have laws that actively suppress unions should be treated just as the slave-holding states were treated. They should be given a handful of chances to reform on their own, and if not, reform should be forced upon them. Unions are not necessary when employers treat their workers humanely, but the right to form unions is one of the checks and balances that keep employment from resembling slavery.

But consent is not equivalent to the absence of a power-imbalance. Discouraging power-imbalances is just one of the things we do to try to keep there from being non-consensual relationships.

You seem to be under the impression that I believe a lack of power imbalance automatically equates to consent, or that I have some romanticised view of the North.

...why?

[Ashmoria]

consent has to be ongoing or its no longer consent. if the slave cant say "nah, this aint workin' for me any more, im outta here" then its slavery not a consensual relationship.

[Planeia]

Stop using your BDSM bullshit to justify slavery.

[Aurora Novus]

Stop using your BDSM bullshit to justify slavery.

This isn't even about BDSM, nor justifying slavery. Did you even read my posts?

[Planeia]

Stop using your BDSM bullshit to justify slavery.

This isn't even about BDSM, nor justifying slavery. Did you even read my posts?

Yes, and it was basically BDSM. Love and slavery.

[Aurora Novus]

This isn't even about BDSM, nor justifying slavery. Did you even read my posts?

Yes, and it was basically BDSM. Love and slavery.

No, it wasn't BDSM. Like, at all. This has nothing to do with sex, or people LIKING this setup. I've set up a moral dilema, where a couple is forced to choose between idealism and pragmatism, and how the issue of consent plays into those choices. See this post if you aren't clear on that.

What exactly makes you think this is about BDSM? It sounds to me like you've had a knee-jerk reaction to my post, and are simply trying to dismiss it without actually giving the issue any critical thought.

[Planeia]

Yes, and it was basically BDSM. Love and slavery.

No, it wasn't BDSM. Like, at all. This has nothing to do with sex, or people LIKING this setup. I've set up a moral dilema, where a couple is forced to choose between idealism and pragmatism, and how the issue of consent plays into those choices. See this post if you aren't clear on that.

What exactly makes you think this is about BDSM? It sounds to me like you've had a knee-jerk reaction to my post, and are simply trying to dismiss it without actually giving the issue any critical thought.

Or, you know, you can't tell the joke?

[Aurora Novus]

No, it wasn't BDSM. Like, at all. This has nothing to do with sex, or people LIKING this setup. I've set up a moral dilema, where a couple is forced to choose between idealism and pragmatism, and how the issue of consent plays into those choices. See this post if you aren't clear on that.

What exactly makes you think this is about BDSM? It sounds to me like you've had a knee-jerk reaction to my post, and are simply trying to dismiss it without actually giving the issue any critical thought.

Or, you know, you can't tell the joke?

A successful joke typically requires humor. Maybe you forgot that part. Or this is just you backpedaling now to the oh so common trope of, "Dude, come on, I wasn't SERIOUS!"

Or perhaps I'm being too harsh. Did anyone else honestly see your posts as a joke, and NOT a half-baked ad hom dismissal of my posts?