Throughout all systems and theories of consent, two values can be identified, with the theory variance coming in how the different systems assign meaning to the value. These two values can be defined as the consent-value and gross value of effect (GVE). The interactions between these values defines the moral, political, and social impacts that consent, and through extension, violation of consent has upon parties involved. In the understanding of these two types of values, it is first important to explain their relationship to one another, i.e, the way in which the impact is derived. To begin with, it is required to understand that consent-value is dynamic (for reasons which will be explained in subsequent sections in detail) and that GVE is static. We also need to recognize that the two values are not related in whatsoever way; the consent-value can not be derived from a given GVE, nor the GVE be derived from consent-value. The two values are isolated materially as well as culturally1. It also must be noted that, for our purposes, only the consent-value of an action at the time of initiation matters2.
It is through this isolation that their dynamics can be observed; the difference between the GVE and the consent-value determines the impact of consent or violation of consent. More precisely, the consent-value minus the GVE is represented as the net value of effect (NVE). The NVE is not fundamental in the understanding the difference in various theories of consent, as the NVE’s purpose remains largely consistent across theories. The NVE correlates to the impact which consent or violation of consent provides, i.e. the NVE is the abstraction of the impact, representing the quantifiable relation between the action and its moral, political, and social results. If the NVE is positive, i.e. the consent-value of an action at the time of completion was higher than the GVE, then the result is the action was generally favourable without any majority consequences, real or imagined. If, however, the NVE is negative, i.e. the consent-value of an action at the time of completion was lower than the GVE, then the result is the action was generally unfavourable with consequences, real or imagined.
Another idea which we can draw upon from the NVE, and by extension the interactions between GVE and consent-value, is the idea that it can be paid for retroactively, i.e, paid for through whatever medium value is defined as independent of consent-value. If, for instance, the NVE is below 0 (and thus the impact was unfavourable), then one is able to pay through the medium value is derived until it is equal to 0 or greater. Furthermore it is important to note that in any given system, value can only be derived from one singular medium, i.e, it can not be valued relative to gold and relative to status, it must be relative to only one. This remains true across all systems and theories, which exist to define, first and foremost, how value is defined relative to the world around it. Should it be derived academically, socially, economically, or through understanding.
Since the values that have been laid out require a medium through which they can be defined, it is important to specify that the values can always be represented through numbers. Under social contract theory, it is defined relative to the educated class, i.e, it is represented through its relative importance and scale in securing education. Meanwhile under morphology theory the social status (or social capital) manifests as the method through which value is defined, and intersects closely through correspondence to social competition theory, in which capital is what value is defined relative to3. Yet under mutual understanding theory the value is defined with understanding, i.e, value is defined dynamically through understanding and can take any form needed, so long as it can be justified by all parties.
To reiterate, systems and theories differ solely in how they define value. Across all systems and theories, consent-value and gross value of effect are present, with their application remaining the same. The application of consent-value and gross value of effect is to define the net value of effect as the difference of consent-value and gross value of effect. This net value of effect thereby represents the impact which consent or violation of consent provides to the world. Since all systems exist to define these values, value is unable to be defined relative to more than one external idea at once, nor may it be defined relative to itself or each other. Thus far, we have this equation, in which consent-value is currently represented by ‘CV’:
NVE = CV - GVE
This post is an excerpt from a larger treatise I am working on. Posts will likely be less frequent from this point forward, due to focus on my books as well as personal reasons.