Do philosophical theories

[diwana]

Re: Do philosophical theories

@psyah

From the conversation so far between bella88 and diwana is that …

Bella88 says consent is necessary for an act of sex with another to be allowed
consent for animals is not real
consent for children is not real
consent for diseased (indeterminate)
but consent for homosexual adults is real

this is based on the idea that consent determines whether another is being harmed

So if it is about harm then diwana says that does not apply to eating, because that is necessarily harm and no consent is required … But then that causes a discontinuity between harm of animal in sex to harm of animal for food he is asking why if harm is the criteria of right and wrong is sex not allowed with animals yet eating them is allowed?

Diwana is arguing for the right and wrong in sex not to be taken from the point of view of consent, but from what is natural in the sense that is serves a biological function which is not rooted in the psyche but in the reproductive order and in a biological majority for the species.

I wonder if bella88 thinks people who are sexually inclined to animals and children are sick or not? And if so, what makes them sick and homosexuals not? Inclination has nothing to do with the actual act … It is merely an impulse … Should homosexuals be allowed to nurture their inclinations through engaging in homosexual activity be considered acceptable while those of other inclinations deemed not acceptable, neither in inclination nor in the act … then there is a major inconsistency here.

…

Basically!

Bella has no ground to stand to bring consent as a factor to make something right and wrong. Period.