| Aielyn said: I see that some have observed that this is an analogy to sex and condoms. There are a few key differences. 1. The man cannot know that he has an imperfect condom - that is, it's not that he knows that there's one weak condom in his batch of 100, only that there's a 1% chance that the condom he has might break. Assuming the woman (or gay partner) is also aware of this, it fails to be an analogy both in terms of the man's knowledge and the other person's knowledge. 2. There is no transaction taking place - that is, the man is not making a financial gain or otherwise gaining anything that is being traded for something knowingly possibly-defective. 3. The man did not manufacture the condom as the baker manufactured the cake (presumably). This alters the situation enough that the morality and the responsibility should be different. In my view, if both sexual partners know that the condom could break, and both choose to go ahead with the sexual activity, then the responsibility should be exactly the same as if both choose to have sexual activity without a condom. Note that an exact situation mirroring the Baker analogy would be medicinal drugs... if the laws didn't state that warnings must be put on them indicating possible side-effects, etc, but it was known that serious illness occurs in 1% of patients who use the drug, then selling the drug without such a warning would be a breach of responsibility akin to the Baker possibly selling an infected cake. This is why laws are in place requiring those warnings. |
1. It is the same thing. Having sex (or selling the cake), he knows there is a 1% chance of his condom failing (or selling a bad cake) since no condom is guaranteed to be perfect; therefore, he knows that there is a 1% that there will be undesired consequences (same for the baker). If he still chooses to have sex (sell the cake), then he should still be responsible for the very unlikely consequences. That was my point. I don't think the knowledge of the partner/customer matters as it relates to the responsibility of the male/baker.
2. I don't see what the existence or lack of a transaction this has to do with the baker/male being responsible for the consequences of their actions.
3. Assume the baker did not manufacturer the cake, so it can be equivalent. The baker would still be responsible for whatever happens. So it doesn’t really matter if the male/baker manufactured the condom/cake.
I don't see why the responsibility is different.
In the end, none of the above really matters since it looks like you agree with me. You state "if both sexual partners know that the condom could break, and both choose to go ahead with the sexual activity, then the responsibility should be exactly the same as if both chose to have sexual activity without a condom." However, everyone knows (or should know) that a condom could break; none are perfect. So I assume you must agree with the fact responsibility from protected sex (under any sex) is the same as the responsibility from unprotected sex. This was my point.
