Solum on consent

Cross posted on Political Arguments.

Lawrence Solum has posted a new addition to his Legal Theory Lexicon. The topic is consent. Here's a taste:

Most law students begin realize that consent is a powerful legal and moral concept early in the first year of law school. A physical blow to the person is a battery—unless the blow was landed in a boxing match, in which case consent turns the battery into something that is legally permissible and not actionable, even if it results in serious harm. Intercourse without consent is the very serious crime of rape; intercourse with consent is quite something else.

The basic legal structure is easy to grant. But what is consent? Why does it have the legal and moral force that it does? When is it valid and when is it invalid?

Solum's brief outlines of important topics in legal theory are helpful, although sometimes his disciplined attempt to provide a balanced and objective exposition leaves one's philosophical appetite scarcely whetted. In this entry, the most provocative statements are those pertaining to consent in aretaic (virtue) theories, which Solum has defended in the past (on the theory of adjudication, constitutional theory, and judicial selection).