Well, the problem with that is that it means you always know you're bluffing. When you say, "You must obtain consent from women," for example, the listener simply has to say, "Why"? And there is no answer behind that. So you're forced to threaten with power: "If you do not obtain consent, I/we will thrash you, or lock you up." But that's not in any sense a moral or ethical thing to do...to threaten people with force, so one is thereby becoming a bad person oneself. Because one is simply bullying, with no actual right behind one's use of force.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:53 amI was almost certain you would take your stance on Authority.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:21 pmWho told you that?
Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.
There is no ultimate means to legitimate reason or romanticism. Some of us simply get used to not knowing it all.
It would only be ethical if one had some ultimate authority behind one's declaration, some answer to the question "Why?", that one could remain oneself a good person while insisting on an ethical precept.
So a good answer would look like this: "You must obtain consent because women are not your property to abuse, and are made in the image of God; and God ultimately holds you accountable for how you treat people." Even if the respondent said, "Well, I don't believe that," then the answer is still the same: "Believe it or not, it's how things actually are. Ignore it at your own peril."
Furthermore, that ultimate reality grounds the legal judgment of temporal authorities as well: the police have a duty to enforce sanctions against non-consensual relations, not because they invented one, nor even because they have arrogated to themselves the power to do so, but because their law reflects the ultimate moral law written into the universe by the Creator Himself. Women really do have an ultimate right not to be treated in certain ways. And law-enforcer authority is derived from His. Were police not present at all, that law would still be in force...across all societies, all times, and all relevant cases.
That's legitimation.
It's the only final answer possible to the ethical "Why"? And "Why?" is a question so obvious, so simple, so available that even a child uses it. So it can hardly be avoided.