The OP specifically said “anything fully consensual gets no nausea”. So it appears there’s no problem for people who are into S&M or whatever.
Personally, I’m not seeing any downside in the OP’s scenario. I suppose the idea of people having their free will diminished by divine intervention is generally a bad idea but I’m not so dedicated to the principle that I’d choose free will over rape.
Two possible objections have already been pointed out, by Ignotus and greenmario respectively: (1) It requires that there be a clear, binary line between what does and what does not count as sexual assault; and (2) It makes sexual assault the one offense, out of all possible human misbehavior, that is so prohibited. Neither of these objections is necessarily a dealbreaker, but both are at least worth thinking about.
Another thing worth thinking about: The result of this divine action would be a world in which people quickly learn that no matter what they do or where they go or how they act or whom they hang around with, they cannot and will not be sexually assaulted. This could easily have effects on what they choose to do and where they choose to go and etc. Some of these effects, I think, would be to the good; but would all of them?
Will it stop people from enjoying Beethoven?
Not me; Beethoven already makes me hurl.
(just kidding)
I would definitely consider it a downside if it winds up with more people hurt than otherwise. If there’s no more sexual assault but instead physical assault goes up by a huge margin, then the ultimate result has been making things worse, not better.
I don’t see this argument, though. Free will isn’t being taken away; consequences are being applied instantaneously in response to certain exercises of that free will. There’s a difference between ‘you’re prevented and punished for what you do’ versus ‘you’re unable to even attempt to do it at all’ or worse ‘your mind is prevented from thinking those thoughts’.
To compare, would you say that fire infringes on free will because you can’t stick your hand in it without it being burned? It seems like the same thing to me. Place your hand in the fire, get burned. Attempt sexual assault, get nauseated.
This, however, I see as a really big downside. If suddenly a supernatural punishment starts affecting people that attempt sexual assault and it’s rendered impossible by a seemingly divine force, then the most rational conclusion is that a god has decided to start directly intervening in human affairs. If this is the only intervention, then the further assumption becomes: this is what is prohibited; anything else is allowed.
After all, why would a god intervene in this when there’s so many other things happening constantly? Why not prevent murders? Wars? Starvation? Disease? Anything else that’s currently considered bad. Well, obviously the god doesn’t care about those things, and therefore they are allowed by inference.
Which leads me to my main criticism with this: why? Why sexual assault? What is it about that version of harm in particular that draws such excessive opprobrium, so much so that it takes all focus away from all the myriad other horrible things happening in the world, to the extent that this is the one focus you would have if you had an opportunity like this?
Why not have the same effect happen anytime a human is harming another human? Or even better, when any sophont is harming any other? That would seem like a much better use of such power (there are some details that would probably be wise to work out with that, but that’s beyond the point at the moment).
That said, I find it awkward that in a hypothetical scenario where you could prohibit all humans from causing any sort of harm to each other, you would limit yourself to only sexual assault. I don’t find it surprising because it does in fact seem common with our culture and society…which is in itself a somewhat disturbing aspect of our culture, if you ask me. That we’re so obsessed with sexual crime that it can seem perfectly normal for a person to focus on it to the exclusion of all other harms that may be being inflicted by people on other people. A culture that doesn’t think that way would be just as puzzled by this as we would be if I were to propose doing something about people that beat others with baseball bats. Only with baseball bats, though; paying no attention to any other form or implement of beating.
I already brought up that counterargument, which I agree is valid. But when you ask theists why God allows human evil, you often get the free will argument. Which is why I usually use natural evil, like earthquakes, where free will is not an issue.
I could just see a footnote in a Discworld book about this case. Double the nausea, and a whisper about not trying to fool the deity.
This would be the reduction of free will by conditioning - and Clockwork Orange has already been alluded to. I think we all pretty much avoid fire unless there is some urgent reason not to, and in this scenario men would avoid assault unless there is some urgent reason to do so. (Don’t ask me what that could be.) It is not quite the elimination of free will in this case, but it would be close.
Imagine, if you will, an intense, wrenching nausea. You feel like puking, your body is gripped by heaves, but you never actually do puke. That would probably be more unpleasant than actually emptying your stomach.
The main downside I would see would be that it would inspire a wave of irrational cults purporting to explain the new metaphysics of the universe. Anything fundamentally inexplicable with science or logic would be bad for the reputation and usefulness of those things.
It would be a different world, but it wouldn’t be any less logical or rational, would it?
Well, how would you explain the sudden change in physics, and how it works? I mean, perhaps there’d be some cult that claims that this sudden change is because the end of the world is close, or that rapture has happened and the rest of us are changed? Or that this nausea is God’s judgment on humanity? Or that guru Smith claims that God told him that this was all in his plan, and that we should give up all our possessions and join him in his compound? Or some random guy on the internet who claims that it’s because he had godlike powers for a moment and made it so, but now he conveniently doesn’t have those powers any more?
Now, to the rational, none of the above claims would make any sense. But what rational alternative explanation could be offered for the sudden, unexplained change?
Well, IF he gets caught, he freedom is going to be curtailed momentarily, and if he is convicted, curtailed for a long, long time. Better a momentary wave of nausea than 30 years behind bars.
I’m closing my curtains.
+1. doubleplusgood even.
That’s a good point, if it were suddenly instituted. It would most definitely have serious consequences for cults, religions, and increased persecution of atheists.
But in a universe where “the guilt sickness” or whatever they would call it had always existed, it would just be another fact of life. Religions would have whole, established dogma surrounding its origins and purpose, probably morality tales / Bible stories as well. Cults and blasphemers would have nonstandard interpretations.
Scientists would probably have a hand-waving explanation which would still very much allow for atheism… off the top of my head, “Mutually-exchanged pheromones which lead to gastric distress in those attempting sexual assault, which evolved due to the advantage of preserving the health and well-being of mothers.”
Why wouldn’t the true explanation be the rational one? “Rational” doesn’t mean materialistic. In a world where magic or overt divine intervention or anything supernatural like that actually existed, it would be rational to believe in such things and to take them into account.
But you’re right that this would make people more open to supernatural explanations of other things (and to incorrect supernatural explanations of this phenomenon), which would be mistaken according to the OP’s scenario.
And (if we accept the hypothetical) they’d be barking up the wrong tree to do so. So scientists would either search for a mechanical explanation where none ultimately exists, or they would adapt to allow for regular, predictable, rule-based divine intervention as a part of science. Either one of which would change things.
I chose sexual assault (and anything along the sexual assault spectrum) because it’s one of those rare actions that’s never morally justifiable or acceptable, unlike assault or murder. Sometimes it’s reasonable or morally good to punch someone without their consent; sometimes it’s even reasonable to kill someone; it’s never reasonable or morally other-than-evil to molest or sexually assault someone. And thus a relatively simple rule could be crafted (assuming momentary omnipotence) to counteract it. Any “rule” against other sorts of immoral violence would be much, much harder to craft.
The OP clearly states that the change would be “from now on”, which makes it clear that the change would be sudden. Your hypothetical universe is not the one the OP specified.
What evidence could they possibly find to rationally come to the true conclusion? As I mentioned earlier, I would expect there to be hundreds or thousands of people who would claim responsibility via various implausible scenarios. How would a rational person in this universe (other than Andy, who personally experienced it) be able to evaluate his claim as the one true one?
As to your new hypothetical of a universe where this sort of divine intervention was in the plural, and random people periodically got this power and the choice of what to do with it - the downsides of that hypothetical universe should be obvious.
Okay, I probably should have said “Why wouldn’t the true explanation be a rational one?” You’re probably right that no one would be able to evaluate the claim as the one true one. But it would at least be one of the possible explanations that was not incompatible with all available evidence, and so it would not be irrational to believe it.
Ah, on reflection, there is a way. It would probably take some time after the change went into effect before most people noticed it, and even longer than that before the details of the rules of how it work would be worked out.
If Andy makes a public announcement immediately after implementation with the details of how it works, that would be decent evidence that at least some parts of his story are true. (Conspiracy theorists would still claim he was just a traitorous insider who revealed the details of the True Guru’s plan, or somesuch.)
Now, what happens to Andy in this scenario? I’m thinking either a nutjob assassinates him, or some organization (possibly governmental) would kidnap him and attempt to force/drug/torture him into revealing how it really was done, or try to get him to implement other changes. No, I don’t think every single organization in the world would believe his claim that this had been a personal a one-use only divine intervention power.