I think yes, because saying ‘no’ also throws into question whether present you consenting on future you’s behalf is moral, which can lead down a path of concluding autonomy itself is immoral.
Meanwhile, if we just say ‘yeah, the non-existant future you is allowed to consent to things on past you’s behalf’, we avoid all that mumbo jumbo. Honestly, it’s something people do actually do sometimes, now that I think about it. Forgiveness almost operates in that fashion.
Yes, but this question relies on the premise that they ARE the same individual, at different points in the person’s life.
Put it another way, past you can and does give consent on behalf of future you all the time. Assuming time travel ever became a real thing, there’s an argument to be made that they’re closely equivalent.
Past me can give consent for themselves, yeah. If I ever change my mind then so too does the status of the consent.
So, if the present version of the person in the comic gave consent, but the past version did not, then consent would not be given. Time travel or no, it is up to the individual.
(Edit: I was talking about broad consent here without taking into context the subject matter of the comic. I was trying to avoid that subject matter because it is gross, and hoisted myself by my own petard in the process. To be clear - The past version is under age and therefore cannot give consent in the depicted scenario.)
I don’t agree that they are the same person. Even though they’re two instances of one being. They’re two physically separate bits of mass with different opinions on the situation.
In real life you have a continuous line from past to future me, I include all my previous experiencs. Most people would agree that makes it OK for future-me to bear consequences of past-me decisions.
Time travel breaks the logic and makes past-me a subject of decisions of future-me. Which is fucked up and does not count as consent imo.
Which is fucked up and does not count as consent imo.
How much of that is due to it not being a possibility in real life, though?
In real life you have a continuous line from past me to future me.
Future you still has to live with the memories and consequences of any decisions they take that affects past them. And if they screw up their past too badly they cease to exist (depending on which multiverse theory we’re going with). That’s a pretty direct line.
What happens to future-me is kinda irrelevant (and also depends on how time travel works). The past me is being affected by events they did not do or know about (through future me). The line doesn’t go backwards.
I’m not talking about just sex here. There’s plenty of legally binding stuff you can’t withdraw from one you’ve agreed to them.
Well you should have been more clear on that. I also could have been more clear that I was talking about body autonomy (like the situation in the comic) and not legally binding contracts.
I didn’t think I had to be that explicit with the details. No. I was not intending to imply that. Honestly the topic of the comic is gross and I was trying not to acknowledge it too much. I was mostly just talking about the past/future bodily consent issue in general. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
Edit: I had a different reply earlier where I was jerkish. Sorry. I shouldn’t comment whilst grouchy and sleepy. I re-read my earlier comment and, yeah, I can see how that came off that way.
They are not the same individual. I am not the same individual I was 10 years ago. I have different cells, different scars, different shapes. I also have different memories and experiences and what is an individual if not that.
From a legal perspective, the you of today is the same individual as the you of ten years in the future. And the you of today is perfectly capable of making binding decisions affecting future you, so my question is, why not vice versa.
Or if you want to make it easier - if you could send a message back to yesterday, should you be allowed to do something legally binding on behalf of yesterday’s you?
If you have committed a crime ten years ago but only got convicted today, it’s only because you should have been convicted ten years ago. Legal system has to make this logic to keep the karma system intact. You can’t sign a contract ten years ago and forfeit it now without being punished, claiming, “It’s not me.”
It is the memories and experiences that make a difference.
I am the same person I was when I was 6, but I have a lot more memories anecdote experiences which is why I’m old enough to drink alcohol but I wasn’t when I was 6 despite being the same person.
20+ years ago, and I definitely would not have consented to shit then that I love now.
Yes, but past you did consent to shit back then (loans, etc) that affect you today, whether or not you love it. So what’s the difference if the timeline is reversed?
Yes, but past you did consent to shit back then (loans, etc) that affect you today, whether or not you love it.
Well, I’m not currently experiencing the shit I consented to then (loans are a non sequitur to this conversational topic), and consent is very much temporal and retractable.
It is temporal in that I can consent to something today, but that doesn’t mean you have consent to do it forever. If I agree to do something with you today, that has no bearing on whether or not I will agree to it a year later.
And being retractable should be blindingly obvious. Anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, you don’t get to make that choice for another being.
So what’s the difference if the timeline is reversed?
Do we really need to explain to you why it wouldn’t be ok to provide consent for another being? Or that there is an immeasurable difference between making a financial decision when you’re ~18 vs someone else (past you is not future you, so they are different entities - no mind share to make them the same) saying you can be raped at ~12?
That’s a really weird philosophical question… Can future you consent to stuff on present you’s behalf?
Edit: Everybody seems to think I’m talking about sex for some reason. I’m talking in the general sense of ‘legally binding stuff like contracts’.
I think yes, because saying ‘no’ also throws into question whether present you consenting on future you’s behalf is moral, which can lead down a path of concluding autonomy itself is immoral.
Meanwhile, if we just say ‘yeah, the non-existant future you is allowed to consent to things on past you’s behalf’, we avoid all that mumbo jumbo. Honestly, it’s something people do actually do sometimes, now that I think about it. Forgiveness almost operates in that fashion.
That’s a pretty cool analogy
Pretty simple answer here: No.
Consent is based on the individual. Identical twins can’t give consent for each other, despite being genetically identical.
Yes, but this question relies on the premise that they ARE the same individual, at different points in the person’s life.
Put it another way, past you can and does give consent on behalf of future you all the time. Assuming time travel ever became a real thing, there’s an argument to be made that they’re closely equivalent.
Past me can give consent for themselves, yeah. If I ever change my mind then so too does the status of the consent.
So, if the present version of the person in the comic gave consent, but the past version did not, then consent would not be given. Time travel or no, it is up to the individual.
(Edit: I was talking about broad consent here without taking into context the subject matter of the comic. I was trying to avoid that subject matter because it is gross, and hoisted myself by my own petard in the process. To be clear - The past version is under age and therefore cannot give consent in the depicted scenario.)
I don’t agree that they are the same person. Even though they’re two instances of one being. They’re two physically separate bits of mass with different opinions on the situation.
Not really. I’m not talking about just sex here. There’s plenty of legally binding stuff you can’t withdraw from one you’ve agreed to them.
What if tomorrow you was sending messages back in time to make arrangements on your behalf?
Yes, ask anybody who wakes up the next morning with a killer hangover if they have a different opinion of the situation.
In real life you have a continuous line from past to future me, I include all my previous experiencs. Most people would agree that makes it OK for future-me to bear consequences of past-me decisions.
Time travel breaks the logic and makes past-me a subject of decisions of future-me. Which is fucked up and does not count as consent imo.
How much of that is due to it not being a possibility in real life, though?
Future you still has to live with the memories and consequences of any decisions they take that affects past them. And if they screw up their past too badly they cease to exist (depending on which multiverse theory we’re going with). That’s a pretty direct line.
What happens to future-me is kinda irrelevant (and also depends on how time travel works). The past me is being affected by events they did not do or know about (through future me). The line doesn’t go backwards.
Well you should have been more clear on that. I also could have been more clear that I was talking about body autonomy (like the situation in the comic) and not legally binding contracts.
Are you implying that if future version gives consent and past version gives consent even thoygh she is underage then it’s fine?
I didn’t think I had to be that explicit with the details. No. I was not intending to imply that. Honestly the topic of the comic is gross and I was trying not to acknowledge it too much. I was mostly just talking about the past/future bodily consent issue in general. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.
Edit: I had a different reply earlier where I was jerkish. Sorry. I shouldn’t comment whilst grouchy and sleepy. I re-read my earlier comment and, yeah, I can see how that came off that way.
They are not the same individual. I am not the same individual I was 10 years ago. I have different cells, different scars, different shapes. I also have different memories and experiences and what is an individual if not that.
From a legal perspective, the you of today is the same individual as the you of ten years in the future. And the you of today is perfectly capable of making binding decisions affecting future you, so my question is, why not vice versa.
Or if you want to make it easier - if you could send a message back to yesterday, should you be allowed to do something legally binding on behalf of yesterday’s you?
If you have committed a crime ten years ago but only got convicted today, it’s only because you should have been convicted ten years ago. Legal system has to make this logic to keep the karma system intact. You can’t sign a contract ten years ago and forfeit it now without being punished, claiming, “It’s not me.”
It is the memories and experiences that make a difference.
I am the same person I was when I was 6, but I have a lot more memories anecdote experiences which is why I’m old enough to drink alcohol but I wasn’t when I was 6 despite being the same person.
You must consider the inertial frame of reference of the given consent.
This is a perfect example of the Ship of Theseus, only we can say for certain they are two different people.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not the same person I was 20+ years ago, and I definitely would not have consented to shit then that I love now.
Yes, but past you did consent to shit back then (loans, etc) that affect you today, whether or not you love it. So what’s the difference if the timeline is reversed?
Well, I’m not currently experiencing the shit I consented to then (loans are a non sequitur to this conversational topic), and consent is very much temporal and retractable.
It is temporal in that I can consent to something today, but that doesn’t mean you have consent to do it forever. If I agree to do something with you today, that has no bearing on whether or not I will agree to it a year later.
And being retractable should be blindingly obvious. Anyone can withdraw their consent at any time, you don’t get to make that choice for another being.
Do we really need to explain to you why it wouldn’t be ok to provide consent for another being? Or that there is an immeasurable difference between making a financial decision when you’re ~18 vs someone else (past you is not future you, so they are different entities - no mind share to make them the same) saying you can be raped at ~12?
Bro I don’t even think past me can consent to things on current me’s behalf.