Bill is in the emergency room with a bullet in his kneecap. Bill was arbitrarily assaulted on his way to work by an identified thug.(Edit: Sorry, by an UNidentified thug. The thug who shot Bill got away. Bill is now just a guy with a bullet in his knee in the ER, as Lorraine is just a girl someone else has drugged in Geroge’s bed.) The doctor offers to remove the bullet from his kneecap for $500,000, and Bill agrees.
Bill is clearly not of sound body and mind. Is this not theft?
Lorraine is at a party at the university she attends. At some point, someone slips a date rape drug into her non-alcoholic fruit punch. We do not know who at the party drugged her; we only know that it was not George.
Lorraine agrees to spend the night with George. George knows that someone else has drugged Lorraine. Is this not rape?
If both of these questions can be answered in your replies, it would help me out tremendously.
Why would you argue this is theft? This is no different from price gauging. Also, I doubt that this would happen systematically in a free market.
This is very clearly aggression Maybe you did this accidentally, but you mentioned that he slipped roofies in her drink. This is poisoning someone. The whole thing goes downhill from there.
Not all price gauging is directed at people who have been aggressed against. I was trying to avoid the larger metaphysical debate over whether or not we are agents of free will or if the universe determines our actions. This man was attacked by another person, not hit by a tree during a tropical storm.
Read the second scenario again. George was not the one who drugged the girl. He knows that someone else has drugged her (which we can agree is an act of violence, just like the act of violence that put Bill in the E.R.).
Why does it matter that the act of violence was caused by someone else? In fact, this makes the ethical dilemma even easier - the person who shot him now would have to cover the higher cost.
Whoopsies. Alright, then, if you accept your conclusion, then almost all interactions with the person would be aggressive. Such as driving them home. I am cautious about arguing that someone can’t make legal decisions because at that point we are saying that they no longer have the power to decide who has access to them - in effect saying that they don’t own themselves any more but are the charge of, idk, some higher being?
This is a stickier scenario than that. The man who shot Bill got away. Bill was unable to identify him, and now Bill is just a guy with a bullet in the kneecap in the doctor’s ER.
We also don’t know who drugged Lorraine. Now she’s just a girl who’s been roofied in George’s bed.
How is one exchange aggression and the other not is what I’m trying to understand.
Go to the hospital across the street. If the surgeon thinks he can charge someone $500,000 to remove a bullet from a knee, then clearly you are in an area with multiple hospitals, such as NYC or Boston or wherever.
As Wheylous pointed out, the identified thug ought to pay for the removal of the bullet, but it’s not clear he’s necessarily liable for $500,000.
If ever there were an operation that medical insurance would cover, this would be it.
It’s only rape if it isn’t consenual sex. So, the question is whether or not Lorraine was able to legally consent. The fact is, she may very well have consented to sex, but this does not mean the law will recognize that fact. My understanding is that among other effects, date rape drugs also cause memory problems. So, when Lorraine wakes up in the morning and can’t remember consenting, it becomes a he said, she said dispute. Lorraine “knows” she didn’t consent to sex with George, so George has some explaining to do.
All Lorraine has to do is get drug tested to see what was in her system. Once she shows she had whatever drug was used, then George is really in deep shit. Of course, he could always claim he didn’t know and didn’t drug her, but that’s really not the point of your question. It doesn’t matter what the legal system is, some crimes just don’t get resolved.
If you are asking whether I think George is liable, then absolutely yes. This would be trickier if George didn’t know Lorraine had been drugged. But either way, Lorraine has to prove that George aggressed against her. Without proof, no one has any way of knowing what actually happened.
So George knows Lorraine has been aggressed against (drugged by someone other than him), and you say that George is therefore guilty of rape. Correct?
So why is it different for the doctor, who knows Bill has been aggressed against (shot by someone else, thus disorienting him in a similar fashion as was Lorraine)? How is his exchange with Bill not an act of aggression, if you accept that George’s exchange with Lorraine is an act of aggression?
Note:
In the first scenario, the shooter gets away. I wrote mistakenly in the original post that the thug was “identified”; I meant “unidentified.”
If you consider it to be theft, then that implies you think Bill is entitled to pay the doctors less than $500,000 to remove the bullet in his kneecap. I don’t see how the doctors are obligated to remove the bullet in his kneecap for any particular amount of money or at all*.* So no, I personally don’t think this situation constitutes theft.
I think it is - at least prima facie. Since George knew in advance that Lorraine had been drugged, I think he therefore became a joint principal to the trespass committed against her. Lorraine may choose to not press charges against George after the fact, and thereby forgive him for what he did, but that’s up to her.
I know you meant this for GotLucky, but I hope you don’t mind if I respond to it.
As far as I’m concerned, the difference lies in the obligations I think the doctors have toward Bill versus the obligations I think George has toward Lorraine. I don’t think the doctors are obligated to treat Bill at all. That is, I’d consider them within their rights to simply turn Bill away. Such refusal of treatment in no way constitutes aggression in my book. On the other hand, I think George is obligated to not aggress against Lorraine. By knowingly taking advantage of her non-consensual intoxication, I think he becomes an accomplice to the aggression committed against her.
“I don’t see how the doctors are obligated to remove the bullet in his kneecap for any particular amount of money or at all.”
This is true. However, in the other scenario, George doesn’t have to sleep with Lorraine. So the question of obligation cannot be used to argue that the doctor is not aggressing Bill in the first scenario.
“I think it is [rape] - at least prima facie. Since George knew in advance that Lorraine had been drugged…”
The doctor knows in advance that Bill has been shot. Bill said “okay” to the offer the doctor made to remove the bullet for $500,000. Lorraine also said “okay” to having sex with George. How does Bill’s “okay” express consent if Lorraine’s does not?
I disagree. As I see it, the doctors aren’t depriving Bill of anything he’s entitled to - not in charging him any particular price for removing the bullet in his kneecap, not for doing so for free, and not for refusing to treat him at all. On the other hand, George is helping to deprive Lorraine of something she’s entitled to. George is like someone who, while not part of the planning for a bank robbery, volunteers to drive the getaway car afterwards. In doing so, I think such a person would become a joint principal to the bank robbery.
My point is that I think there’s more to it than that. In fact, I don’t understand why you’re seemingly trying to limit the discussion.
More than one person can be guilty of aggressing against Lorraine. Suppose someone just straight up knocked her out, and then George had sex with her. Clearly George raped her. But since Lorraine wasn’t already unconscious, and your scenario was that she was drugged but consented, the question is whether or not her consent will be recognized by the law (or ought to be recognized).
Being disoriented does not make one not able to give lawful consent. The disputes themselves are about whether or not each action ought to be considered a crime. Consent is only part of it. In the case of the rape, Lorraine can’t remember giving consent to George, so as far as Lorraine is concerned, she did not consent to sex. So when Lorraine wakes up, she has two choices:
Forgive George and let the whole thing slide.
Press charges against George for raping her.
So, the question becomes whether or not the sex was consenual. If it was consenual, then it was not rape by definition. If it were not consenual, then it was rape by definition. This is why consent is integral to this crime. Lorraine knows she didn’t consent, so when she takes George to court, it’s not like she’s going to be persuaded by George when he says, “You consented”. She knows she didn’t consent, and the drugs make it impossible for her to recollect what happened. Lorraine will absolutely not be persuaded by George’s claims.
As far as Lorraine is concerned, George raped her. It was not consensual. But your question is also about the law, which will pretty much mean that the opinions of others are involved. So, Lorraine has to demonstrate in court that George raped her, otherwise the other people in society will not necessarily believe her. They may think that any action Lorraine takes against George is aggression. As I said before, some crimes just go unresolved. It sucks. It doesn’t matter what the system is, not all crimes get resolved.
But in the matter of liability, we know that someone drugged Lorraine and is guilty of aggression. As Autolykos pointed out, George took advantage of that and becomes party to that crime. His subsequent actions with Lorraine are criminal because Lorraine did not consent to being drugged and having her mind altered.
Regarding Bill, the doctor was not an accomplice to the crime of shooting Bill. Just because he talks with Bill and removes the bullet for a fee doesn’t make him an accomplice. Anyway, if Bill wants to press charges when he is no longer delirious, so be it. I’d like to see Bill complain when the doctor shoots him in the knee for being an ungrateful sonofabitch.
If it is true that Bill was not legally competent at the time of this agreement, then indeed no property exchange occurred; i.e. the doctor did not obtain from Bill a right to use his body (i.e. perform surgery), and so it is the same as if the doctor performed this surgery without even Bill’s nominal consent, and Bill did not transfer ownership of the $500,000, which is therefore still Bill’s property. There’s no difference between this situation and one where the doctor knocked Bill out, performed the surgery, and took $500,000 from Bill’s wallet. Bill would be due restitution for whatever damages resulted from the surgery (though in practice I think he would be hard pressed to actually identify damages, assuming the surgery was successful), and would be entitled to 2x restitution for the stolen property (i.e. $1 million).
If Lorraine was not legally competent, and therefore could not give consent, and if George had sex with her while she was in this condition, it follows that George had sex with Lorraine without her consent; this is rape, no different in law than if George had grabbed her in a back alley.
So George isobligated to refuse a sexual exchange with Lorraine when she tells Geroge, “Let’s do it.” Why? (Is it that she’s not of sound body and mind as a result of being aggressed against?)
However, you’re saying the doctor is not obligated to refuse a performing medical procedure on Bill when Bill tells the doctor, “Remove this bullet for $500,000.” What is your basis for this? (Bill is also not of sound body and mind as a result of being aggressed against.)
The doctor took advantage of Bill, so why doesn’t the doctor become a party to that crime? Bill did not consent to being shot and having his mind altered.
*Reminder: $500,000 is a lot of money. Bill will probably have to spend the rest of his life paying this back. He agreed to it when he was in tremendous pain after being shot. Is everybody saying that Bill must pay this money up?
Why wouldn’t Bill have similar choices?:
Forgive the doctor for his outrageous fee and “let the whole thing slide” (spend the rest of his life paying off $500,000)
Press charges against the doctor for [taking advantage of him when his mind and body were altered by an aggressive third party]
So why wouldn’t you argue, “just because George talks with Lorraine and has sex with her doesn’t make him an accomplice”?
I’d like to point out that the cause of someone’s being legally incompetent is irrelevant. That is, it makes no difference whether Lorraine is legally incompetent because she was drugged, or because she drugged herself; likewise, it makes no difference whether Bill is legally incompetent because he was shot, or because he shot himself. the bottom line is that if you’re legally incompetent, anyone who does anything to your or your property which would normally require your consent does not have your consent and is therefore an aggressor
The main problem here is that you don’t understand legal consent. We let drunks buy alcohol. Sometimes they get cut off, but not always. Are all their transactions with the bartender nonconsensual? The fact of the matter is that Lorraine consented, but the fact of the matter is also that George was an accomplice to the drugging. The rape was a result of the crime that George was an accomplice to.
Anyway, I’m just going to pull a Milton Friedman and say that you are not arguing the principle of the matter. Your objection to the doctor is not that he performed a life saving surgery but in how much the doctor charged for the surgery. You think $500,000 is too much for the doctor to charge a dying man. That’s your objection.
And like I said, if the man feels he was better off dead, then he can off himself after he realizes the doctor saved his life. Or he could try to argue that he doesn’t really owe the doctor $500,000 but whatever the standard fee for that surgery would be.
No, that is not an equivalent. If Bill truly thought that the doctor aggressed against him, then his problem is not with how much he was charged for the surgery but that the surgery was even done at all. If Bill forgives the doctor, then he is forgiving the doctor for the invasion of the surgery and pays him nothing.
Of course, the doctor would probably then sue Bill for the $500,000, but that’s a separate issue.
If Bill thinks that had he been “in his right mind”, he would rather have bled to death instead of having a life saving surgery, then sure, he can sue the doctor for having saved his life. I was being facetious earlier when I said I’d like to see Bill complain about the doctor shooting him in the knee for being ungrateful, but seriously, if he wants to die, there is no need to make everyone else miserable while he’s at it. Bill can off himself and save us all the trouble of putting up with his shenanigans.
You are missing what George was an accomplice to. He was not an accomplice to the rape, he was the rapist. George was an accomplice to the drugging of Lorraine.
Let’s say the doctor was delighted to see that someone had put a bullet in his knee (just as George was delighted to see that someone has drugged Lorraine), and the doctor saw this opportunity to get Bill to say the word “Yes” to what the doctor always wanted of him, but knew he would never agree to being of sound body and mind:
The doctor wants Bill to be the doctor’s servant until one of them dies.
Because Bill is in this state when he agrees to be the doctor’s servant for now on, is the contract valid?
Or, it could be that Bill offered the doctor Bill’s own servitude. It could also be that Lorraine asked George to have sex. Neither are of sound body and mind.
To bring in the idea of “obligation,” Geroge has the obligation to turn down Lorraine’s request, but the doctor does not have the obligation to turn down Bill’s?
Maybe you did this accidentally, but you mentioned that he slipped roofies in her drink. This is poisoning someone. The whole thing goes downhill from there.