Online research in philosophy

Machine generated contents note: 1. Introduction: why focus on informed consent?; 2. Deciding who decides: capacity and consent; 3. Putting the informed into 'informed consent': information and decision-making; 4. Freedom of expression: the voluntary nature of consent; 5. A patient's prerogative? The continuing nature of consent; 6. Concluding words about consent; Index.

Consent theories of political obligation draw upon the unique powers consent exhibits in everyday dealings, but they are frustrated by the "problem of massive nonconsent." Expansions of what is counted as consent, such as tacit or hypothetical consent, have seemed untrue to the core concept of giving willing consent. David Estlund proposes a novel conception, "normative consent," to address the problem of massive nonconsent while being true to "the idiom of consent." This comment details consent’s virtues and shows that consent theories cannot claim enough of them to vindicate political obligation.

Introduction -- Locke's theory of ideas -- Locke's theory of matter -- Locke's theory of language -- Locke's theory of identity -- Locke's theory of morality -- Locke's theory of knowledge.

Much has been written about Locke's Second Treatise,[Note 1] but still, I believe, the book's main line of argument has been left unclear . Some concepts need more prominence---the duty to preserve mankind, the right of war, and private judgment; others need less---consent, majority rule, and property. Locke's aim was not to show that political obligation rests upon consent: that is assumed without argument.[Note 2] What he set out to prove is that there are certain limits to political obligation which not even consent could set aside.[Note 3].

This essay scrutinizes political obligation in the Second Treatise by analyzing the natural liberty Locke attributes to children, savages, some foreigners, and other tacit consenters. Both natural liberty and the voluntarism of consent require certain conditions to be actualized, one of the most important of which is room enough: unoccupied space like that found in America in which it is possible to exit from the potentially coercive dilemmas of tacit consent and perhaps to originate a founding (express) consent. Insofar as consent and natural liberty rely on the availability of open space, though, Lockean liberalism justifies, maybe requires, settler colonialism.

Locke appears to be committed to the peculiar views that native-born residents and visiting aliens have the same political status (since both are tacit consenters) and that real political societies have very few "members" with full rights and duties (since only express consenters seem to be counted as "members"). Locke, however, also subscribes to a principle governing our understanding of the content of vague or inexplicit consent: such consent is consent to all and only that which is necessary to the purpose for which the consent is given. Using this principle, we can see that Locke's commitments are to far more reasonable positions.