道德风险和沟通同意

IF 3.3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Renée Jorgensen Bolinger
{"title":"道德风险和沟通同意","authors":"Renée Jorgensen Bolinger","doi":"10.1111/PAPA.12144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In addition to protecting agents’ autonomy, consent plays a crucial social role: it enables agents to secure partners in valuable interactions that would be prohibitively morally risk otherwise. To do this, consent must be observable: agents must be able to track the facts about whether they have received a consent-based permission. I argue that this morally justifies a consent-practice on which communicating that one consents is sufficient for consent, but also generates robust constraints on what sorts of behaviors can be taken as consentcommunicating.","PeriodicalId":47999,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12144","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral Risk and Communicating Consent\",\"authors\":\"Renée Jorgensen Bolinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/PAPA.12144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In addition to protecting agents’ autonomy, consent plays a crucial social role: it enables agents to secure partners in valuable interactions that would be prohibitively morally risk otherwise. To do this, consent must be observable: agents must be able to track the facts about whether they have received a consent-based permission. I argue that this morally justifies a consent-practice on which communicating that one consents is sufficient for consent, but also generates robust constraints on what sorts of behaviors can be taken as consentcommunicating.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12144\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12144\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12144","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

除了保护代理人的自主权外,同意还发挥着至关重要的社会作用:它使代理人能够在有价值的互动中保护伴侣,否则在道德上会有极大的风险。要做到这一点,同意必须是可观察的:代理人必须能够跟踪他们是否获得了基于同意的许可的事实。我认为,这在道德上证明了同意实践的合理性,在这种实践中,传达一个人的同意就足以获得同意,但也对什么样的行为可以被视为同意交流产生了强有力的约束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moral Risk and Communicating Consent
In addition to protecting agents’ autonomy, consent plays a crucial social role: it enables agents to secure partners in valuable interactions that would be prohibitively morally risk otherwise. To do this, consent must be observable: agents must be able to track the facts about whether they have received a consent-based permission. I argue that this morally justifies a consent-practice on which communicating that one consents is sufficient for consent, but also generates robust constraints on what sorts of behaviors can be taken as consentcommunicating.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信