For law, we have words and contracts, but what really is consent? It will seem like a silly point, but it's not effectively real in any case.
  1. Coercion
    I hold a gun to your head and order you to open a register or die. You are already legally safe, because your actions are brought about by threat. But, you do actually have that choice. You could choose to die over cooperate.
  2. Mundanity
    In the other corner, a meaningless choice. You must select a pen from two. Their color is so similar that nothing in your life can notice the difference, though they verifiably are. For all circumstances this is a decision you will be accountable, but no one would likely need anything settled over it.
  3. Consequence
    The difference between the outcomes of a decision being nil provides the most actual choice. The consequence difference being life and death provides no common idea of choice.
  4. Consent
    As evidenced by every victim of heinous crime, and every hero of unignorable principle, choices of major consequence are equally those we feel no concept of consent within.
  5. The Unintended Harm
    Consent is a legal shorthand for actual fairness, and fair is the sense of an upper limit to the difference in consequences to avoid rendering someone's will completely meaningless. By treating consent like the magic bullet to questions in ethics, we exclusively label a situation with an answer rather than come to understand morality better. What's right is right because it's right, not because it's legal. In the topic of humanity, the course may not incur precepts of heuristic legalisms.