1. Implied consent means giving consent on something without
verbally expressing it, and the consent is communicated through people’s
actions and the circumstances in which those actions take place. One example of
morally acceptable implied consent could be when the assumption of that the well being
of many is seen as more important than an individual explicit consent. For
example: if a person wants to go through airport security before getting on an airplane
this person is not asked whether she or he might want to consent to be in some
way inspected and scanned by airport security guards. In another scenario, when
someone is in danger and needs help it is morally acceptable to believe that
the person in need is giving implied consent to another person to assist regales of how intrusive the other person presence can
be. Example: a police officer is not allow to walk inside someone’s home
without a warrant, but if the police officer feels that the people in a house
may be in immediate danger then he possibly will be inclined to walk right in the house thinking that his presence may be needed without someone expressing it.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Implicit or explicit consent blog post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For your first set of the questions, what sort of "needs" can indicate consent? Is the degree of the need relevant? Is the urgency of the need relevant? Let's take that into computer-land--suppose that you think that my computer isn't secure enough and that I "need" a more secure computer; does that give you license to break into my machine and install something that allows for improved security?
ReplyDeleteAbout your first comment: “Need” only under an extreme circumstance, an emergency, life or death situation or if is agreed by common view of local culture that an action is morally correct. E.g. a house was burning and there is a person inside the house trying to escape the fire but is trapped inside (the trapped person “needs” immediate help), and if a stranger that was coincidently walking by that house notices that trapped person and knows that can get that trapped person out of danger, the stranger then enters the house “running” and pulls out the person and saves the life of the person that was trapped i.e. consent can be implicit under the theory of utilitarianism, at least when there is an obvious immediate need for action.
ReplyDeleteOn the last example the stranger helping a person in need would not care about private property, breaking and entering or won’t care about breaking some rules under the life-threatening circumstances and would believe that permission for him to run inside private property and breaking a door or a window of someone else’s private property is ok when the main purpose is saving a life.
Now, my previous view of “Need” in the computer land is not applicable unless there was something that would make sense under utilitarianism, there is no circumstance in which I would have to assume your implied consent to secure your computer and get in your system without you permission because there is no extreme need for it.