Consent Is Not Enough

“As long as it’s between consenting adults, what’s the harm?” This has become the ethical trump card of our age. But is consent really sufficient for moral evaluation?

The New Ethic

Somewhere along the way, consent became the only relevant moral category for evaluating human behavior—especially sexual behavior. If everyone involved agrees, then nothing can be said against it. End of discussion.

This represents a revolutionary shift. For most of human history, consent was necessary but not sufficient. There were things you shouldn’t do even if everyone agreed. There was something called virtue that went beyond permission.

The Poverty of Consent

Consider what we lose when consent is our only criterion:

We lose the category of exploitation. Two people can consent to arrangements that harm them both. Power imbalances, desperation, and manipulation can all coexist with technical consent.

We lose the concept of dignity. Consent says nothing about whether an action treats human beings according to their worth. You can consent to your own degradation.

We lose wisdom about consequences. Consent is about the moment of choice, not the aftermath. But actions have effects on character, relationships, and society that extend far beyond the consenting moment.

The Biblical Framework

Scripture offers a richer framework. It teaches that:

1. Humans have inherent dignity that can be violated even with permission
2. Bodies are not merely ours to dispose of as we please—they are temples, members of Christ
3. Actions form character—they shape who we become, not just what we do
4. Sex creates bonds that cannot be dissolved by mere consent to dissolve them
5. The good is objective—it exists independent of our preferences and permissions

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. — 1 Corinthians 6:12

Recovering a Fuller Ethics

This isn’t about prudishness or control. It’s about recognizing that we are more than autonomous choice-making machines. We are embodied souls embedded in communities, shaped by practices, aimed at ends.

The question isn’t just “Did everyone agree?” but:

• Does this honor human dignity?
• Does this cultivate virtue or vice?
• Does this build up or tear down?
• Does this reflect the purposes for which we were made?

Consent is important. But it’s a floor, not a ceiling. We were made for more than permissible arrangements. We were made for love.