We’re basically arguing over the meaning of the word consent. I don’t feel pedantic enough to bother.
I feel obliged to point out that at no point have I maintained that fucking the hottie, or even taking her number, is okay. It is immoral to willingly and consciously benefit from an evil action in that way.
Anyway, the point of the post you quoted from was that the hottie’s inability to refuse to consent in one area does not imply an inability to consent or refuse to consent in all areas. That’s why I think DT’s contention that she or he has lost personhood is wrong.
(a propos of nothing, it’s the third time I’ve opened this thread and re-read its title as “There is, of course, a shag”. Which is somehow quite appropriate.)
I think its more a debate what ‘love’ means in this context and that the limits io this consent are not clearly defined. If the love effect is limited, then they have the option to not take advantage of it, without their life really being ruined. If it isnt limited, then its pretty much slavery.
In real life there generally isnt one person in the world for a hottie and they have no chance of happiness unless they meet them. There also generally needs to be some kind of practical compatibility - you’d probably also have to change many of the persons preferences, eg suddenly gaining a love for someone who pedantically argues over message board hypotheticals, which arguably makes them another person than they originally were. Love would also probably disappear pretty quickly if they found out they only felt said way because they had been manipulated by a god, and they would probably be able to find a way to reengage with the partner they had suddenly done a 180 on.
And of course people do have free will over nicotine in that people give it up all the time, not to mention had some level of choice in getting involved in the first place. This scenario is more akin to surreptitiously feeding someone nicotine for years until they are strongly addicted, or addicted to something that they can never stop using.
Etc etc. In my view the hypothetical can only really proceed if a more brainwashy ‘have no choice’ fictional kind of love is involved. Defining the limits of this brainwashing without being essentially bereft of free will seems quite problematic to me.
This was my first thought. There’s gonna be an angry and confused ex wandering around, probably seeking revenge. So I’d ask Athena to kill off the ex so I don’'t get any blow back from that direction.
On second thought, maybe do some kind of mind wipe on the ex. Either’s good.
Really? If you had no advance knowledge or means to change the evil action? I don’t think so. How many transplant recipients lives are save by bits and pieces from murder victims?
If your spouse murdered someone in order to procure a heart for you, and you learned about this later, are you morally bound to kill yourself? Or to piously wash the feet of strangers in the subway for the rest of your life (or pick another incomprehensibly biblical penitent activity)?
The way I read the OP, they aren’t forced to love you, they’re forced to stop loving someone else. As soon as they meet you, they will love you, but that’s because they’re your perfect match, not because of anything Aphrodite did in that regard. Is that right, Skald?
In fact, Skald, the way the OP read to me, if you met this person and they were still married, they would probably still fall in love with you, just still be tied to someone else, you’re just that perfect for each other. Also, the OP doesn’t specify that she was blissfully happy in her marriage. She may have been going through the motions…
That being said, and going by the OP’s hypothetical that I’m single, it would be unethical not to meet this woman. Sure, an unethical thing was done, but not by me or at my instigation. So all that’s left is to decide what maximises the continued happiness all-round, and clearly that’s getting with my soulmate, since otherwise she’ll be unhappy (and so would I). Her ex is going to be unhappy either way, nothing to be done about that now - and he is still open to the possibility of finding his soulmate. so it’s 3 unhappy people vs 1 (possibly) unhappy and 2 blissful. The maths is trivial.
Of course, in order to continue being the ethical soul I am, I’d have to relate to my new lady love exactly how I came to be in her life, as soon as possible. Since we’re soulmates, this shouldn’t matter, she could never have loved that schlub as much as she loves me now, and it’s all for the better that they made a clean break, really. Any perfect match for me would see the logic in that :dubious: In fact it probably saved the guy from heartbreak further down the line, so it’s better for everyone, really.
You’re missing the obvious here. Aphrodite is right in front of you - why not ask her to match the ex with a suitable single somewhere? They’ll be too busy being loved up to be angry with you. They may even thank you. And Aphrodite should be more than aware of the potential repercussions of angry exes.
I’m not currently single but in the case of the OP I’d take the gift with thanks but think a long, long time before actually seeking out the person.
Love is so hard to find. I might even argue it was immoral to not meet up with this person. If you are their “perfect match”, then you are actively denying them happiness (and yourself!) in a very imperfect world.
Me, I’ll take the happiness. I’m on this earth for 70, 80 years. I don’t believe in anything afterwards. I am a hedonist at heart, even if I can’t fully indulge. But I believe in happiness first and foremost.
I’m not talking about years here - maybe a week, maybe a couple of weeks, a few months tops. Are we expecting her to be subject to an acid attack in the interim?
Wouldn’t that be a pretty silly attitude to have, if you’re having a conversation with Aphrodite?
Talking to a god pretty much makes divinity a matter of fact and not belief. Knowledge that there is a god or gods whose basic job description includes “make people love one another” takes the already-shaky concept of “free will” and roughs it up quite a bit.
I’m a little torn here. You’re describing what I intended, but I don’t think the dialogue of the OP supports it:
[QUOTE=me. obviously. Oh, and there’s extra bolding that wasn’t there before]
At this, Aphrodite scowls. Not coincidentally, the sky darkens, the earth shakes, and every bird within a hundred miles falls out of the sky dead. “Look, mortal,” she says, "I owe you a favor, so I’m repaying it. But don’t mistake me for one of your own kind. already did it, and I’m not undoing it no matter what you say. That’s not how I roll. Now, as I was saying, I’ve made this hottie fall in love with the simple idea of you; they’ll never be happy or even content with anyone BUT you now. … "
[/QUOTE]
I think I have to go with what’s actually on the screen. Clearly Aphrodite’s fucked with the Victim’s head in two ways: turning the Victim’s love for the spouse to hate, and giving the victim a desire for someone exactly like the person being, ah, rewarded.
