On Wrongs and Crimes: Does Consent Require Only an Attempt to Communicate?
On Wrongs and Crimes: Does Consent Require Only an Attempt to Communicate?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11572-018-9473-x
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Dougherty, Tom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dougherty, Tom
在《错误与犯罪》一书中，维克托·塔德罗斯（Victor Tadros）澄清了关于同意是否需要传达的争论，他将同意是否需要表达行为的问题与同意接受者是否需要以理解的形式接受的问题分开。一旦这种区别被画出来，Tadros认为，同意不需要摄取，同意不需要表达行为，提供证据给同意接受者。因此，Tadros认为同意需要尝试沟通，但仅此而已。虽然我发现塔德罗斯对这一结论的论点很有趣，也很有挑战性，但我还没有被他们说服。在这篇文章中，我试图解释为什么。
In Wrongs and Crimes, Victor Tadros clarifies the debate about whether consent needs to be communicated by separating the question of whether consent requires expressive behaviour from the question of whether it requires uptake in the form of comprehension by the consent-receiver. Once this distinction is drawn, Tadros argues both that consent does not require uptake and that consent does not require expressive behaviour that provides evidence to the consent-receiver. As a result, Tadros takes the view that consent requires an attempt to communicate, but nothing more. While I have found Tadros's arguments for this conclusion intriguing and challenging, I am yet to be persuaded by them. In this essay, I try to say why.