a) the hypothetical consent is informed and not a product of ignorance; — Bartricks

:ok:

b) the actual informed consent is not practically possible; — Bartricks

:ok:

c) when not doing X to Rachel would either result in her being harmed, or deprived of a significant benefit; — Bartricks

Problemo! If Rachel has a different set of values, you wouldn't be able to give/withhold consent on her behalf. One man's meat is another man's poison.

d) when the hypothetical consent can be considered to be present prior to the performance of the act. — Bartricks

:ok:

Problemo! If Rachel has a different set of values, you wouldn't be able to give/withhold consent on her behalf. One man's meat is another man's poison. — Agent Smith

What's the problem? Are you saying that there is no fact of the matter about whether doing X to Rachel will harm her or not? Or are you just saying that sometimes it'll be hard to tell?

Either way there is no problem for my condition. If there is no fact of the matter about it - an absurd proposition, for of course there is - then c still applies and so too if you are just saying that it'll sometimes be hard to tell. You haven't done anything to show c to be false by simply pointing out that sometimes it won't be easy to tell if c is satisfied.

sometimes it won't be easy to tell if c is satisfied. — Bartricks

:up:

That's the fatal flaw in your argument, oui?

No. Pour l'amour de Dieu

If your method of thinking for someone else isn't going to cover all the bases, it's as good as not having a method at all, si? Each case would need to be evaluated separately, as unique and special. Furthermore, that means a lot of guesswork! No, no, mon ami, you've failed to make a case for hypothetica consent.

I repeat: not knowing whether C is satisfied or not is not evidence that C is false.

We ought not to hurt another, other things being equal. But sometimes we can't tell whether doing X will hurt another or not. By your wonky lights that's evidence that it is false that we ought not to hurt another.

I repeat: not knowing whether C is satisfied or not is not evidence that C is false.

We ought not to hurt another, other things being equal. But sometimes we can't tell whether doing X will hurt another or not. By your wonky lights that's evidence that it is false that we ought not to hurt another. — Bartricks

You're contradicting yourself. First you affirm it isn't (always) possible to know what someone wants and then, second you deny that very position by averring that hypothetical consent is permissible.

If hypothetical dissent is deemed to be possible (which is what makes the very concept of consent applicable vis-à-vis creation), then I believe that hypothetical consent can also make sense. Personally, I don't think that either are relevant as far as creation is concerned due to an absence of interest in any state of affairs, but a view should at least be consistent.

@Bartricks

I was wrong, a thousand apologies. Hypothetical consent is possible. One simply has to put oneself in the other person's shoes! I recall, 6 or so moons ago, attempting to simulate the long-dead Buddha (his mind); some very well-known thespians are known to become the character they're portraying. So, for instance, Ben Kingsley (becomes)is Gandhi!

You're contradicting yourself. — Agent Smith

I've never done that.

First you affirm it isn't (always) possible to know what someone wants and then, second you deny that very position by averring that hypothetical consent is permissible. — Agent Smith

How's that any kind of contradiction?

As I said in the OP, hypothetical consent is not consent.

The proposition "Rachel would have consented to have X done to her" can be true. And it is the moral relevance of such truths that I am talking about.

:up:

Of course it isn't—but it can be an acceptable substitute provided one would agree for a thing even if they would be in a situation they couldn't get it themselves, which is something that could be applied to having a life that one values.

Hypothetical consent is possible and permissible provided that it be dealt with the utmost delicacy.

We can be informed of what a person's value set is, the particulars of a given situation, and that's all we need for hypothetical consent.

Implicit in the notion of hypothetical consent is the belief/fact that we're all, like Aristotle thought, rational animals. Are we?

Similar to how hypothetical dissent could be possible, provided that clear signs of interests in an alternative state of affairs are present ;)

Similar to how hypothetical dissent could be possible, provided that clear signs of interests in an alternative state of affairs are present ;) — DA671

:ok:

I know - that's what I just said. And what I said in the OP.

Differences regarding applicability and justifiability persist (though there could be a change). If there is a criteria for prior acceptance with regard to consent, then prior rejection should also be required for the act of creation to be considered immoral (assuming that the concept even applies).

Thanks for your willingness to raise awareness regarding the need to alleviate harms. Hope you have a great day/night ahead!