Money is necessary, but not sufficient

So earlier this week I got into a back-and-forth on the old necessary/sufficient distinction. That was still kicking around in my mind when I overheard some TV commercial or infomercial in which the spokesman said this exact phrase: “How many times have you heard someone say.”

And thus, because of the way my brain works, I had an old Porter Wagoner song stuck in my head for the rest of the day. (Wagoner was the first to have a hit with “Satisfied Mind,” and I thought he wrote it until I looked it up and learned it was written by Red Hayes and Jack Rhodes.)

YouTube Preview Image

I love that song — the Blind Boys of Alabama version above, or the Dylan version from Saved, or the Johnny Cash version, or the Mahalia Jackson version.

But it occurs to me that this song offers the same confusion that marked my earlier argument. Or, rather, the same confusion that prevented my earlier exchange from even rising to the status of an argument.

Here’s the first stanza of that song:

How many times have you heard someone say
If I had his money I could do things my way
But little they know that it’s so hard to find
One rich man in ten with a satisfied mind

The singer and “someone” seem to be talking past each other without either really addressing what the other is saying. “If I had his money I could do things my way,” is, mainly, a complaint due to the lack of money. The singer’s reply warns that money is no guarantee of happiness.

We could paraphrase this exchange as something like this:

SOMEONE: Money is necessary.

SINGER: Money is not sufficient.

They’re both right. The singer seems to think he’s correcting “someone,” with that “but little they know.” Yet his assertion doesn’t contradict what the poor someone is saying. Both statements can be — and both are — true.

This exact conversation occurs and recurs a lot, often among people who imagine they’re disagreeing. It’s actually the very conversation we should expect to hear between a poor person and a rich one. “Money is necessary,” is the truth that every poor person knows. Likewise, “Money is not sufficient,” is the truth that every rich person knows. It’s also very easy for poor people, because they know money is necessary, to imagine that it might also be sufficient. And it’s very easy for rich people, because they know money is not sufficient, to forget that it is, nonetheless, utterly necessary.

Unfortunately, in most of the endless iterations of this conversation between rich and poor, none of this is expressed in these categories of necessary and sufficient, and so neither side may be able to hear or to learn what the other knows. Instead, the conversation goes something like this:

SOMEONE: Boy, life would be a lot easier if I had enough money.

SINGER: Money doesn’t guarantee an easy life.

They think they’re disagreeing when all along they’re actually both saying parts of the same thing: Money is necessary, but not sufficient. Put it that way, and both someone and singer can agree and move forward from there. But if we fail to see that this is what’s really being said, there can’t be any agreement or even any disagreement — just a lot of confused talking past one another.

For an example of what that sounds like, see every discussion of public school funding ever. Education is another place where the simple truth is that money is necessary, but not sufficient for decent outcomes. Yet every time anyone mentions the need for funding, the response is always that funding is no guarantee of success. “You can’t just throw money at the problem!” That’s not the rebuttal those folks imagine it is. It’s not even relevant enough to qualify as a disagreement.

We don’t usually get tripped up by such confusion when we’re talking about things other than money. If someone says, “You can’t make chocolate milk without the chocolate,” no one will angrily reply that you can’t just throw chocolate at the problem, or that chocolate is not sufficient for chocolate milk. We only seem to get that confused and angry when it’s about money.

Or about sex — which was the subject of that back-and-forth I mentioned up there at the beginning of this post. I had been arguing that consent is a necessary component of any sexual ethics, which met with a sneering response along the lines of “Oh, as long as it’s between two consenting adults then you say anything goes!”

The simple truth that consent is necessary, but not sufficient, for sexual ethics is as likely to be grasped by a puritanical religious person as the simple truth that money is necessary, but not sufficient, is to be grasped by a rich person.

The distinction is not complicated, or unusual. But it tends not to be understood by those who have a stake in not understanding it.

 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Or about sex — which was the subject of that back-and-forth I mentioned up there at the beginning of this post. I had been arguing that consent is a necessary component of any sexual ethics, which met with a sneering response along the lines of “Oh, as long as it’s between two consenting adults then you say anything goes!”

    Well, generally speaking, yes, unless those sexual acts also violate some other ethical standards independent of the sexual standards.  With that caveat, why should anything not go?  

    The person you were talking to seems to think that some sexual things are inherently wrong, even if all partners are consenting adults.  Why?

  • Nathaniel

     Because of Tradition. Or Honor. Or because it makes Baby Jesus/Allah/the local Rabbi cry.

  • Water_Bear

    Because in their minds there’s a “right” way to have sex (M/F, Penetrative Vaginal, Married, Procreative) which is approved by God, and any sex act which deviates from that standard is… deviant. And thus rebellious, and thus a product of El Diablo Robotico.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Albright/100001047690991 Michael Albright

     The devil has built a robot?  Why does nobody tell me the good stuff?

  • Gotchaye

    I don’t think this is actually what’s going on in discussions of education policy.  Everyone I’ve ever talked to who has said something like “we can’t just throw money at the problem” believes that we already spend a sufficient amount of money on education.  If you press on this, you’re going to hear a lot about how some of the worst schools have some of the highest spending on a per-student basis (I have no idea if this is true or to what extent it accounts for certain expenses not directly related to education).  The same people will typically be happy to talk about terrible teachers who can’t be fired and who have huge pensions.  They seem to me to grasp the necessary/sufficient distinction, but they think that so much is already being spent on education that the returns on additional spending are tiny.

  • SisterCoyote

    The distinction is not complicated, or unusual. But it tends not to be
    understood by those who have a stake in not understanding it.

    …Yup.

  • SisterCoyote

     When it’s dishonest, intended to hurt, or manipulate?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Same thing happens in health care debates in Canada. Right-wing politicians always like to toss off “Oh, you can’t just throw money at the problem“, never mind that actually inflation-adjusted spending per capita in Canada on health care in the public sector flat-lined throughout the 1990s and so we have at least a decade, if not two, to catch up to that penny-pinching.

  • Hth

    I personally would find it unethical to have sex with someone if you felt sure that, even though they were consenting to it, they wouldn’t benefit.  If your partner feels like they have little to offer except sex, or that they need to have sex with you in order to preserve the relationship, or if you know they habitually use sex in a compulsive or numbing way — then, yeah, I would say there’s a fully rational case for saying that accepting their consent at face value is an unethical act.

    Sure, you run the risk of being wrong in your analysis, but that’ll happen any time a judgement call needs to be made.  Worst-case scenario, you miss out on what could have been good sex.  But I’d rather run that risk than go ahead and have to worry that I’d be the cause of someone’s long-term regret and/or painful memory.

  • Daughter

     One thing to know about per-pupil spending costs is that often school systems with the highest rates have the largest numbers of children in special education. Federal law mandates the provision of special education services for children that need them, many of which are very expensive, and that can drive up the average per pupil cost in a district.

    So, for example, an urban school system may spend more per pupil on average than its wealthier suburban counterpart, but if you were to break out what is actually spent on a child in a regular education classroom, it may be much less than that child’s counterpart in a suburban school.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’re supposed to wait til he appears to you. That’s when you really know you’re a Satanazi. 

  • Hexep

    There’s also adultery, which I think we can agree is immoral, even if the two people performing the act have both given consent.

  • connorboone

    Re: adultery – It’s a question of why adultery is unethical, even when both parties consent.  Basically, when you get married, there is a promise made (by most married couples, open/poly relationships are different) – “I won’t have sex with anyone but you.” 

    Adultery is unethical because, when you make a promise, you should keep it as best you can.  Not because sex.

  • Stone_Monkey

    First you’ll have to define adultery, I think, then we’ll see if everyone can agree. Because I can think of a few things that are technically adultery (by at least one set of standards) that are actually perfectly okay as far as I can see.

  • Lori

    When it comes to money, this is my current favorite way to express the necessary, but not sufficient condition. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    If you press on this, you’re going to hear a lot about how some of the worst schools have some of the highest spending on a per-student basis (I have no idea if this is true or to what extent it accounts for certain expenses not directly related to education).  The same people will typically be happy to talk about terrible teachers who can’t be fired and who have huge pensions.  They seem to me to grasp the necessary/sufficient distinction, but they think that so much is already being spent on education that the returns on additional spending absent other changes to policy are tiny.

    That is the kind of the view my secular right-leaning roommate has on the matter.  He attributes private schools having so much higher average academic results than public schools to their more efficient use of funding (as opposed to my view about how private schools can afford to refuse students who are not already studious who are pushed by parents who want to see a return on their investment while public schools must accept everyone regardless of talent or motivation and thus have a lower average.)  

    In his mind, the problem with public schools is that they spend too much on administration and not enough on attractive effective teachers, and that the teacher’s unions make it too difficult to correct this because they are so protective of the status quo.  He will begrudgingly concede my point that the reason the teacher’s unions get so protective of their funding is because it is all too easy for the elected higher ups to slash the education budget from one administration to the next without concern for the long term effects, and that at the small wages they have now none of them can afford to risk that kind of adjustment.  

  • Hexep

    Well, yes. It’s oathbreaking. What else could there be?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

     When it’s dishonest, intended to hurt, or manipulate?

    Granted, that is bad.  But I think that falls outside of the strictly sexual ethic, into a more general interpersonal ethic.  Being dishonest, manipulative, or intending to hurt another is generally unethical even without a sexual factor.  

  • Hexep

    Adultery is an action where, when person A has voluntarily bound themselves to person B in  a contract of sexual exclusivity, and then knowingly and willingly conducts a sexual act with person C.

  • Water_Bear

    Umm, this is a bit of a stupid question, but what does “attractive” mean in this context? I’m having a lot of trouble imagining someone arguing that the problem is that teachers aren’t hot enough, but I also can’t think of any other meaning of that word which would make sense.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    There’s also adultery, which I think we can agree is immoral, even if the two people performing the act have both given consent.

    The issue I have with adulatory (which in this case I am choosing to interpret as being where two partners pledge sexual exclusivity to one another than then one of them violates that exclusivity) is still fundamentally about consent.  In a scenario in which one partner cheats on their partner they agreed to be exclusive with to be with a third partner, then the partner being cheated on has not given consent to be in that kind of v-shaped relationship, and indeed could not give consent if they were not informed of it in the first place.  

    Now, if one partner wanted to take another partner, and negotiated with their current partner(s) who consented to this, that would be okay under my sense of sexual ethics because all the partners involved are consenting to the arrangement.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    Personally, I don’t need or even want money to feel happy. I want money so that I will feel safe. So that I will be free of worry about having food to eat, clothes to wear, or a roof over my head. So that I will have the means to defend myself if the economic predators that rule the nation in which I live choose me for their next meal. So that I will not wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden cold thought that if I am ever disabled and unable to work, it would probably be best for everyone if I just went ahead and ate a bullet rather than either be a burden to my family and drive them into financial ruin or else descend into homelessness and a much more painful death due to neglect. That’s what I want money for. Now, if only I could figure out how to get it in sufficient quantities without sacrificing my morals more than I already have by getting a law degree.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Umm, this is a bit of a stupid question, but what does “attractive” mean in this context? I’m having a lot of trouble imagining someone arguing that the problem is that teachers aren’t hot enough, but I also can’t think of any other meaning of that word which would make sense.

    Gah!  Spell check fail.  If you want to get Freudian  you can blame me looking up from my keyboard to smile at my girlfriend as she passed through the room while I typed.

  • Hexep

    That’s true, but I think that’s not usually the case. And in any case, the active sin is oathbreaking, and it applies to any sort of thing – if you’ve agreed to be on my baseball team, but then you go and (no jokes please) start playing for the other team, the morality of the thing remains the same.

    I could imagine such a situation where someone is like, ‘will you, freely, of your own volition, sign this contract wherein I will come back in exactly one year and you have to have sex (defined precisely in the contract) with me,” and then the other person signs it, but then the year passes and they get cold feet, but the first person’s like, ‘yo, contract.’

    But that’s obviously fantastical, and you could swap out the sex with any other sort of deed and the morality of it, whatever that morality is, would remain the same. I think the real question is, is there such a thing as ‘sexual ethics’ that is not, as you said, simply a whole copy of interpersonal ethics? I’m not sure there is.

  • Hexep

    Not to try and scoop the FearlessSon, but I *think* it means ‘a person whose work potential is interesting and desirable, thus making it worthwhile to hire them.’

  • Water_Bear

    Would the morality be the same though? Most people would view reneging on a financial contract as immoral, in fact it’s illegal even in the case of verbal contracts, but the idea of attempting to get… restitution… for a sexual contract would be unconscionable. 

    It’s silly to treat sex like it’s just another kind of activity, given the fact that the sex drive plays such a huge role in our minds. There’s no reason that the rules for sex must be consistent with the rest of our ethics, because we approach sex with different goals and ways of thinking than for non-sexual behaviors. 

  • Lori

    First you’ll have to define adultery, I think, then we’ll see if everyone can agree.  

    No, for purposes of this discussion we don’t have to define adultery and we certainly don’t have to all agree on one definition.

    The people who have to define & agree are the married or otherwise committed couple. When two people have an agreement about what’s out of bounds for their relationship and one of them decides to break that agreement we call that adultery and it’s almost always unethical. Whether or not you would be bothered by what they’re doing is totally irrelevant. What you do and do not think is OK only matters if you or your spouse is the would-be adulterer.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Hunger plays a huge role in our minds, but we don’t treat eating as a sacred right of passage.

    Sleep can completely derail you mentally, but we don’t try and set rules about who can sleep when/where, and what kind of relationship one should have with their blankie.

    Sex shouldn’t be treated as anything special by society. That designation should be up to the individual considering sex to make for themselves. 

    When society treats sex as something other than just another thing, you get what we have now: Where religion trumps common sense, it’s next to impossible to properly educate people, women are treated as community property because of their baby making equipment and their medical care is constantly under attack because god said so.

    Edit: Changed a sentence that was worded poorly.

  • Hth

    I’m not sure I do think “oathbreaking” is the primary ethical violation involved in adultery, and I don’t think anyone else really does either, or else we would condemn divorce just as roundly — after all, it’s not just the breaking of one clause in the marriage contract, but the abandonment of the entire contract, so on “keeping your sworn word” grounds, it’s actually much worse.

    Most of us consider filing for divorce *at most* a very minor ethical violation, and I’d bet not even that.  Adultery bothers people not because you made a promise and then broke it.  I’m not even sure that adultery bothers people that it bothers (and it bothers people to varying degrees, in spite of the cultural assumption that it’s the Worst Thing Ever) for any very logical reason.  Which is fine — we’re all illogical about some things, and as Water Bear says, sex more than most of them.

    Some people would say it’s the deception that bothers them most.  Some feel it’s most painful because of the jealous feeling it evokes — what did she have that I don’t have?  What was lacking about what we had together?  Some are largely angry because they feel exposed and embarrassed when other people know about it.  Other emotional stuff is in play, too, and that’s why I basically don’t think there’s such a thing as “sexual ethics” as opposed to “interpersonal ethics.”  For me, all ethics turns on treating other people as though their feelings and experiences count and are valued.  Even consent isn’t just a sexual ethic — respecting people’s boundaries and refusing to use coercion to overrule their autonomy is kind of a big deal any time humans interact.

  • Hexep

    No, but there’s a difference between divorce and adultery. Divorce is, by whatever means, attempting to remove the burdens of a promise. Adultery is simply breaching it. Examine it as though it were sports – if an athlete were bound to your team by a freely-entered contract of exclusive appearance. Until you both agreed to renege on the contract, or until it naturally expired, then they could only play for your team, and you would have to pay them a fixed amount of money.

    If they try to renegotiate the contract, if they try to get out of it somehow in a way that we both can agree on, or even if they take a strong-arm position and refuse to play, that’s one thing – well, it’s various things, but they’re all in the same sphere.

    But if they break faith and go play for the other team while still, in appearances, keeping to their contract, then that’s a different thing entirely. It’s not just the thing – it’s the deception.

  • Hexep

    I agree with your second paragraph in its entirely, O Lori-of-the-flowery-icon, but the impishness in me compels me to point out that you did, in fact, define adultery in it.

  • Water_Bear

    Given the amount of ritual significance we assign to good table manners, when eating certain foods is acceptable, what can be eaten at all, and how we classify meals depending on who is there and their relationships to one another, eating is a bad example. I would get some pretty seriously upset looks if I used dog food in chili for the Company Barbecue, drank a bottle of whisky before noon, or ate a nice fried monkey-brain.

    Similarly, sleeping at certain times of day, in certain places, even postures while sleeping are given a lot of significance by our culture. If I sleep hanging from the ceiling I’m “crazy,” if I do it until noon I’m a lazy slacker, and if I sleep with a smile and gently tousled hair I’m a highly-desirable innocent.

    And with sex, can you think of any other activity where you can withdraw consent partway through without making some kind of reparations? Or where even thinking of doing it with an animal or a family member is enough to make you a social pariah?

    Our ethics should ideally be achievable and relevant to human nature. If they fail to distinguish between something as emotionally and instinctually charged as sex and filing your tax returns, that is a system which is fundamentally flawed.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    Hunger plays a huge role in our minds, but we don’t treat eating as a sacred right of passage.

    There’s an episode of Star Trek Enterprise where they spend a big chunk of the episode trying to work out how they offended some aliens they just met. It turns out that they consider eating and mating to be similarly private affairs (This is telegraphed early on when they suggest that their diplomatic faux pas was caused by a bad translation, since the alien language has a lot of words that are really close, like their words for ‘eating’ and ‘mating’). They’d offended them by showing them the mess hall on the first date.

    At that moment, I wished Star Trek would grow a pair and have someone say “Good thing we didn’t show them the orgy room”

  • Lori

    I don’t think that counts as defining adultery unless one really stretches the definition :)

    When we talk about defining adultery we’re usually talking about placing things on one side or the other of the OK/Not OK line. I think that’s going to be different for every couple and I don’t think it’s relevant to the conversation here. I’ve never known a couple for whom there was nothing on the Not OK side of the line. Some people have a lot fewer things over there than others, but I’ve never known anyone with none.

    As a slight tangent, I’ve seen more than one couple get into major, sometimes relationship ending, trouble because they never defined and agreed. Each of them had a definition of cheating and just assumed that of course their partner had the same definition because that’s just what cheating is, only to discover on down the road that their definitions failed to overlap in significant ways. Talking. Talking to your partner is good. Most people should do more of it.

  • Hexep

    It may indeed be unconscionable, but can you explain why, from a position of pure moral logic? Because I sure can’t.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate getting people to sign onerous contracts. But an ethical system that doesn’t develop from pure logic is ultimately a weak one.

  • Leum

     I have yet to encounter an ethical system based on pure logic that I would be comfortable following. Ultimately, I think most of our morality boils down innate disgust, squick, if you will. Ethical systems are based at looking at the basic squicks and attempting to unify them. Once you do that, you can start extrapolating to situations where there isn’t as much certainty about the morality of the act.

  • Gotchaye

     Depends what you mean by “pure moral logic”.  Human nature, to say nothing of all the culture-specific hang-ups people tend to develop and the range of variation among individuals within cultures, is not going to fall out of pure anything.

    As far as ethics is concerned, sex is special because, for lots of people, it is.  It requires special rules because we attach special significance to it.  Ethics just has to take all of that as given.  The ethical question about sex is just “given people as they are, what rules for sex are best?”  And from there we can start trying to reason things out.  There’s no reason to expect in advance that the same kinds of contracts should be considered binding for sex and for financial matters or that restitution for broken contracts should be handled in the same way for both.  I think that for plausible definitions of “best”, it’s not going to be the case that people should be able to commit to having sex far in advance, or that restitution in kind is the appropriate remedy for breaking a short-term commitment.

  • Water_Bear

    Not really, sorry.

    To be perfectly honest, the idea of codes of ethics makes no sense to me. A reasonably self-aware person ought to be able to figure out the boundaries of what motivates and what disgusts them not to need one for setting goals. In terms of “what should I do in this situation” logic law and courtesy cover the territory pretty well. Why should someone follow a code made by another person when they already know what they want and how to get it?

  • reynard61

    “There’s an episode of Star Trek Enterprise where they spend a big chunk of the episode trying to work out how they offended some aliens they just met. It turns out that they consider eating and mating to be similarly private affairs (This is telegraphed early on when they suggest that their diplomatic faux pas was caused by a bad translation, since the alien language has a lot of words that are really close, like their words for ‘eating’ and ‘mating’). They’d offended them by showing them the mess hall on the first date.

    (…)

    “Eta: What really sold it was the alien diplomat’s delivery. The way he’s uncomfortable and disgusted as he says ‘You put *food* in your *mouths*,’ and then very timidly confesses that his species eats exactly the same way, ‘but wedo it in private!’”

    Think of the stroke that that poor guy would have gotten if he’d walked into a restaurant or mall food court!

  • Carstonio

    There’s no reason that the rules for sex must be consistent with the rest of our ethics, because we approach sex with different goals and ways of thinking than for non-sexual behaviors.

    What would those be? All the laudable sexual ethics I know about are variations or spinoffs of consent. There may be another or additional principles involved, but offhand I wouldn’t know what they would be. Purity-based sexual ethics most often seem to be about a woman’s reproductive ability as familial or husbandry property.

  • Hexep

    I don’t subscribe to the notions of common sense, common decency, or common knowledge, or to the hypothetical ‘reasonable person.’ What appears reasonable within one group or culture may be entirely unreasonable or even repugnant to another.

    I don’t exactly understand your question. Wouldn’t you want to follow a code made by another person because that way you have a common baseline from which you and others can proceed, rather than operating on your own systems that may rub together incorrectly?

  • Hexep

    I dunno, can you tell me about some that you’ve encountered that you wouldn’t be comfortable following?

  • Carstonio

    Squick shouldn’t be a basis for ethics, because that would result in punishing nonconformance for its own sake, and treating prevalence as though it had moral value. I would like to think that true squick and moral revision are two different impulses in most people, but given the number of homophobes who seem to confuse the two, I see no basis for optimism there.

  • spinetingler

     It’s called a Droid 4.

  • Gotchaye

     I don’t know if this really helps.  It just kicks the complications over to figuring out exactly how consent works, and in practice that’s going to result in rules for general consent and rules for sex-consent.

    The contracts thing is a pretty good example.  We don’t have a problem with people consenting in advance to pay someone else money, even years in advance.  There are wrinkles here, but in general one isn’t allowed to withdraw this sort of consent.  On the other hand, one can withdraw consent to have sex up until it’s done.  Even if you want to frame sexual ethics as being all about consent, you still have to explain why consent works differently with sex than with other things.  You need an account of implicit consent and of how apparent consent can fail to be actual consent.  You’re going to be bringing in other principles and facts, such as a right to bodily autonomy and the significance people attach to sex, to do a lot of this explaining.  And so on.

    If you prefer the framing, go for it.  Rhetorically, it probably does make it easier to exclude certain bad rules in advance.  But I’m not sure it’s different when you get down to it.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    The person you were talking to seems to think that some sexual things
    are inherently wrong, even if all partners are consenting adults.  Why?

    Well, for example, some people think deliberately injuring people is wrong, even people who consent to being injured. So those people might think sexual things that cause injury are wrong, even if consensual.

    Of course, that in turn raises the question of how we identify injury, the edge cases of which get tricky.

    I think I would summarize my own position as that injury trumps consent in principle, but consent is the most reliable tool we have for avoiding injury in practice. But I’m still working that out.

  • Leum

    TW: rape, bestiality

    I dunno, can you tell me about some that you’ve encountered that you wouldn’t be comfortable following?

    I can’t, from a logical perspective, make an argument that raping animals is wrong. I already accept the morality of much more extreme invasions of the bodily integrity of animals (e.g. neutering and euthanasia) without their consent. Nevertheless, I believe, on an innate level, that it is wrong to have sex with animals, but not wrong to neuter them.

    I can’t, from a logical perspective, justify any lifestyle for myself other than living in the most austere poverty possible, donating all my spare money to charity, and spending every moment I can in the service of others. Nevertheless, I’m morally comfortable with the fact that I do not do this.

  • Hexep

    From the first one, that just suggests that this part of your code is unfounded. If you can concede that it’s moral to spay or neuter an animal, let alone to kill and eat it, or as time was to make them pull plows and wagons until they died, why not do the other thing, if there’s utility to it?

    And as for the second, I don’t see what sort of calculus leads to that conclusion.

  • Leum

     Simple, any resource I’m using that I don’t need to survive is a resource someone else might need to survive.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    Sexual ethics are a subset of relationship ethics. Beyond consent there is also the need for no harm to be done to the participants or others. So – for example – revenge sex to make a third party jealous is a no no even if the participants bot know the reason for the sex.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X