It is unreasonable to say that when both parties ignore the lack of moral consent, an individual is being deceived. The act of deceiving involves causing someone to believe something that is not true. In the example of Candice and Courtney, Candice was unaware of the previous owner of the skis and did not intentionally deceive Courtney. Furthermore, Courtney was made aware of all the information that was possible from the beginning, so she was not fooled and gave her morally valid consent. And when it was discovered that the skis belonged to Joseph Stalin, Courtney found out about it and that's when she decided to withdraw her consent. Therefore Courtney gave her morally valid consent and Candice did not deceive her. Instead, Courtney simply withdrew her morally valid consent. Furthermore, when two people have sex unaware that there is a breach of agreement, the severity should be determined by the harm suffered by the victim of the deception. I am not arguing that harm is the best way to measure the wrongness of sexual deception in all cases. Instead, I argue that in cases where both partners are fully aware of their actions, aware of who they are having sex with, but unaware of “breaks in the deal,” the harm explanation should be adopted. So, in the example of Candice and Courtney,
tags