Explaining the Wrong of Rape

Abstract

The standard view in the literature is that the wrong of rape has to do with consent rather than experiential harm – this is the Consent Explanation for the wrong of rape. In this dissertation, I argue that we should reject this view, for three reasons: (1) there are many ordinary instances of morally permissible non-consensual sex (for example, cases involving people with intellectual disabilities); (2) if we accept the Consent Explanation, we have to say that we ought to prevent such people from having sex when they would enjoy and benefit from it, and this is counter-intuitive; (3) we can explain the other intuitions we have about wrongful sexual activity by appealing to harm (so the appeal to consent is unnecessary).