Conscious but unable to consent - what can you do to/with a very drunk person?

[EricK]

For the purposes of this thread, please take it as given that having sex with a person too drunk to consent, even if they are conscious, is equivalent to rape. If you wish to argue that it isn't rape, then start your own thread!

Now there are many other things, other than having sex, that would be illegal/immoral if you forced someone else to do them. Are they equally illegal/immoral if the person is conscious but too drunk to consent?

Example 1: forcing someone to smoke a cigarette would be illegal - some sort of assault, I assume. If a very drunk person asks you for a cigarette, are you committing the same sort of assault if you agree to give them one? Does it matter if they have been smoking all evening?

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

I'm sure you can think of your own examples.

If, in your opinion, some kinds of things would be illegal/immoral and others wouldn't what is the reason for the difference?

 

[Sarpedon]

Put him in a longboat until he's sober,
Put him in a longboat until he's sober,
Put him in a longboat until he's sober,
Early in the morning!

 

[Bronzeage]

For the purposes of this thread, please take it as given that having sex with a person too drunk to consent, even if they are conscious, is equivalent to rape. If you wish to argue that it isn't rape, then start your own thread!

Now there are many other things, other than having sex, that would be illegal/immoral if you forced someone else to do them. Are they equally illegal/immoral if the person is conscious but too drunk to consent?

Example 1: forcing someone to smoke a cigarette would be illegal - some sort of assault, I assume. If a very drunk person asks you for a cigarette, are you committing the same sort of assault if you agree to give them one? Does it matter if they have been smoking all evening?

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

I'm sure you can think of your own examples.

If, in your opinion, some kinds of things would be illegal/immoral and others wouldn't what is the reason for the difference?

I draw distinction between "too drunk to make a wise decision" and "too drunk to make a decision." If a person is too drunk to make a decision, they would be unable to ask for a cigarette, or even hold it.

This seems to be a specious analogy. What we can and should do with a drunk person is prevent them from suffering harm.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Generally, I get them to sign contracts for long term investments when I'm out drinking with them. I'm the top salesman in my company and have a liver transplant operation scheduled for next month.

 

[fromderinside]

Generally, I get them to sign contracts for long term investments when I'm out drinking with them. I'm the top salesman in my company and have a liver transplant operation scheduled for next month.

Next time you sober up enough to consider what you just wrote insert me as your beneficiary.

 

[abaddon]

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

A drunk person asking for a ride… That's a very wise thing for a drunk person to do! It's marvelous he made this choice over driving himself. Yes, DO give him a ride home, FFS! If he wants a cigarette and you have one and you don't mind giving one away… then what on earth is wrong with that? Saying "No cuz your drunk" would be a kind of moralistic asshole stance to take.

Things to avoid irt drunk people: Don't let them drive if you can stop it. Don't rape them. Don't go to bed with them if they're very young (under 25), or older than that but much more drunk than you are. If they're passed out, try to avoid rubbing your naked butt on their head while taking pictures.

 

[arkirk]

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

A drunk person asking for a ride… That's a very wise thing for a drunk person to do! It's marvelous he made this choice over driving himself. Yes, DO give him a ride home, FFS! If he wants a cigarette and you have one and you don't mind giving one away… then what on earth is wrong with that? Saying "No cuz your drunk" would be a kind of moralistic asshole stance to take.

Things to avoid irt drunk people: Don't let them drive if you can stop it. Don't rape them. Don't go to bed with them if they're very young (under 25), or older than that but much more drunk than you are. If they're passed out, try to avoid rubbing your naked butt on their head while taking pictures.

What a life you live! Watch out for those cigarette burns in your car upholstery.
Also if they are very drunk, you may find a wet spot. Make sure you drop them off at THEIR HOME.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Example 1: forcing someone to smoke a cigarette would be illegal - some sort of assault, I assume. If a very drunk person asks you for a cigarette, are you committing the same sort of assault if you agree to give them one? Does it matter if they have been smoking all evening?

If they're that drunk, i don't want them near open flames.
Last time a drunk asked me for a cigarette, i gave him a pencil.
He tried to light it with a dry-erase marker until i told him the smoke was bothering me. He sucked on it quite happily, though i think he swallwed the eraser.

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

I don't think even forcing them into your car is kidnappnig as long as you can tell the officer you were worried that he'd drive drunk.
And hide the bottle of ruffies before you get pulled over.

If, in your opinion, some kinds of things would be illegal/immoral and others wouldn't what is the reason for the difference?

As a career sailor, i've seen a lot of drunks. And cleaned up a lot of puke. I draw the line at things that would risk permanent harm.
And whether it's funny.
I do not want them to choke on their own vomit, for example. But i'm okay with drawing stigmata upon his hands and feet and taking pictures of him barfing into a Bible.

 

[doubtingt]

The question cannot be answered without specifying what "too drunk to consent" means. In each of the answers already given people are making some unstated assumption about the meaning of this, but without specifying it, it would be impossible to determine when those examples have occurred.

Note that the legal "definition" doesn't help because there isn't one that has any kind of objective criteria. It is a legal argument that relies upon a completely non-scientific and arbitrary notion of how drunk is too drunk, what observable behaviors are necessary and sufficient to determine that level of drunkenness, and what level of seeming overt consent can be discounted on the basis of that unspecified level of drunkenness.
If we are using this kind of "definition" of "too drunk to consent" that is used in rape cases, then I would say nothing should be illegal to do with a person that is "too drunk to consent", because the extreme inconsistency and arbitrariness of guilt verdicts and guarantee of false positives would be too high to tolerate in any defensible legal system. OTOH, let's imagine that we define the concept as a person who is barely conscious to the point of having no idea what is happening and truly don't know what act they are engaging in and ability to process information so impared that any "yes" response to a request for consent is equal (psychologically not "legally") to a person with no comprehension of english saying "yes" to a request in English. Under this definition, I would say it is illegal or at least immoral to get them to do most things that have likely long term impact on them and that any reasonable person would think they would not agree to if they were aware of what was happening (note that this does NOT mean, if they were completely sober but merely less drunk).

For example, getting them to give up anything that most people highly value like their savings, job, house, car, their kids, etc. Getting them to take a serious drug (other than the one they are drunk on) that they don't regularly take, getting them to do something that puts their life or health in plausible danger, getting them to say something publically (including on social media) that is likely to harm their reputation or social relations. All of these I would say are immoral under my given definition of "too drunk too consent", I'd need to think more about if they should all be criminal acts.

Things that would not be illegal or immoral are: letting them do something non-physically harmful that they said they wanted to do beforehand, giving them a ride home (unless on a motorcycle), letting them eat a fried burrito, doing things that any reasonable person would view as protecting them from physical harm even if if it requires some degree of physical or emotion coercion to get them to cooperate with your efforts, encouraging them sing Karaoke (because thats too hilarious to be wrong).

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is why so many people hate philosophy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is why so many people hate philosophy.

Agreed. It's the more practical subjects which require more effort from students, so the girls in those other courses tend to get blind drunk and pass out so that you can fuck them more often.

 

[fast]

For the purposes of this thread, please take it as given that having sex with a person too drunk to consent, even if they are conscious, is equivalent to rape. If you wish to argue that it isn't rape, then start your own thread!

Now there are many other things, other than having sex, that would be illegal/immoral if you forced someone else to do them. Are they equally illegal/immoral if the person is conscious but too drunk to consent?

Example 1: forcing someone to smoke a cigarette would be illegal - some sort of assault, I assume. If a very drunk person asks you for a cigarette, are you committing the same sort of assault if you agree to give them one? Does it matter if they have been smoking all evening?

Example 2: forcing someone to get into your car is illegal, and would probably be considered to be kidnapping. If you offer a very drunk person a lift home from the bar, are you equally guilty? What if they ask you for a lift home?

I'm sure you can think of your own examples.

If, in your opinion, some kinds of things would be illegal/immoral and others wouldn't what is the reason for the difference?

I'm having trouble equating lack of consent to smoke with forcing someone to smoke. Even a person that lacks consent to smoke can want to smoke. If it so happens to be wrong to give you what you want when you can't consent, it's not therefore forced upon you.

As to what you may do with a drunk person. Well, if your best friend is blistering drunk and starts for the first time kissy-slobbering you and says lets do it, you may steal a kiss. That's what I say!

Afterwards, you must remember that she's your best friend and must care enough to pick her up, hold her in your arms and put her in bed. Talk nonsense until she passes out, get her a blanket, kiss her on the forehead, tell her you love her and go watch some tv.

ETA: if she's not your best friend, then no blanket. Let her wake up cold ... That'll teach her not to get blistering drunk, lol.

 

[doubtingt]

This is why so many people hate philosophy.

If by "this" you mean discussions made pointless by undefined and inconsistently used terminology, then I agree. It is also what makes much of philosophy a waste of time contributing little to the advancement of our knowledge. The past 20 years of cognitive science have advanced our knowledge about the mind and things like consciousness infinitely more than centuries of philosophical banter on these subjects. This is not merely due to use of empirical data, but even more important is the use of specified definitions of terms. Without specified definitions, words are just meaningless air vibrations and squiggles on paper, and "arguments" using these words just incoherent unrelated blather between parties that are not thinking or talking about the same thing.