Ethical Question On Dueling and Gladiator Fighting

[DallasCowboys]

Hey Guys/Gals,

My question is pretty simple, should two consenting, sober adults be legally allowed to fight to the death?

Thanks,

David C.

[Brant Gaede]

Hey Guys/Gals,

My question is pretty simple, should two consenting, sober adults be legally allowed to fight to the death?

Thanks,

David C.

If you want to fight Goliath, David, go right ahead.

--Brant

I want the concessions--and Pay per View!

[BaalChatzaf]

Hey Guys/Gals,

My question is pretty simple, should two consenting, sober adults be legally allowed to fight to the death?

Thanks,

David C.

Yes, provided danger to third parties is prevented or avoided. And provided that both participants post security bonds to pay for the disposal of their bodies, if they should be killed. Any medical expenses derived from the duel shall be borne by the participant.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore. Does the guy on the ground get to say "Stop" to the guy standing over him with a sword ready to thrust? You are suggesting a civil contract that shoves aside criminal law. But it is criminal law that is paramount in legality. To pass a law that states it's okay for consenting adults to fight to the death is effective anarchy to that extent plus all the associated political-philosophical moral erosion. If you and I so fight--with clubs say--and you knock me down with a blow to the head and I'm lying there quivering in my gore, you have created with me a "right" to finish me off with one more big whack to the head splattering my brains all over the arena?

--Brant

you initiate force and I initiate force therefore it's okay to initiate force if it's just you and me?--maybe if it improves the gene pool but a simple vasectomy would do that--especially if done on both idiots (and no sperm bank allowed--as soon as someone seriously proposes this arrest him and haul him off to the vasectomy clinic or just strip him naked on the spot and geld him)

[Jules Troy]

Only if it's Obama vs Jet Li.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

[DallasCowboys]

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

Football and Boxings goal isn't death. In football I can't finish off an injured player. F.Y.I. I am playing devils advocate because I think it should be legal for people to fight to death.

[jts]

Hey Guys/Gals,

My question is pretty simple, should two consenting, sober adults be legally allowed to fight to the death?

Thanks,

David C.

A possible concretization of this question is what sometimes happens in prisons. Two very bad guys get into a fight to death. Should this fight be permitted?

[Brant Gaede]

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

No fair! You've jumped the context.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, seriously, no. You have two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore.

So you are also opposed to boxing and football?

Football and Boxings goal isn't death. In football I can't finish off an injured player. F.Y.I. I am playing devils advocate because I think it should be legal for people to fight to death.

Oh, well, why?

--Brant

money?--sometimes pure libertarianism leaves one dead up on the moral and philosophical rocks as another example of ideology leading you around by the nose-ism--it's like we're the workers in a Chinese restaurant eating the real Chinese food in the back while the general public isn't served the chicken heads in their soup

[anthony]

Invalid query. Between rational men there can't be any conflict that cannot be sorted out without force - or simply walked away from.

To put your life up for grabs is immoral.

[BaalChatzaf]

Invalid query. Between rational men there can't be any conflict that cannot be sorted out without force - or simply walked away from.

To put your life up for grabs is immoral.

No it is not. Each person owns his own life and body and can dispose of it, provided no hazard are harm is imposed on an uninvolved person.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If we deduce reality from a principle, freedom would mean the reinstatement of duels and fight-to-the-death spectacles.

If we obtain principles from observed reality, from human nature, that's not such a good idea.

I know I don't want to live in a place where this stuff goes on. It encourages too much bullying. We already live around too many bullies as it is. We don't need more.

Bullies aren't too keen on respecting the individual rights of others. In other words, freedom is not a default state for humans. It needs to be defended. Against who? Bullies. A society that fosters the growth of bullies will deserve to lose its freedom.

We have sports as the civilized way to deal with the aggressive competitiveness in the lower parts of our brains (the lizard brain--which couldn't give two hoots for freedom--all it wants to do is kill, eat, flee and fuck).

Besides, preservation of human life is one of the core values at stake. Not destruction of it--and worse, turning it into entertainment.

Michael

[anthony]

Invalid query. Between rational men there can't be any conflict that cannot be sorted out without force - or simply walked away from.

To put your life up for grabs is immoral.

No it is not. Each person owns his own life and body and can dispose of it, provided no hazard are harm is imposed on an uninvolved person.

Nope. The question is posed as a moral one (presumably rationally selfish) preceding what you're 'allowed' to do with ("dispose of") your body and life.

All it comes down to, is to live by the principle of the standard of life - or - to kill and be killed like any stronger/weaker predator in the wild.

[BaalChatzaf]

Invalid query. Between rational men there can't be any conflict that cannot be sorted out without force - or simply walked away from.

To put your life up for grabs is immoral.

No it is not. Each person owns his own life and body and can dispose of it, provided no hazard are harm is imposed on an uninvolved person.

Nope. The question is posed as a moral one (presumably rationally selfish) preceding what you're 'allowed' to do with ("dispose of") your body and life.

All it comes down to, is to live by the principle of the standard of life - or to kill and be killed like any stronger/weaker predator in the wild.

In practical terms there is no way to prevent suicide. Like I said we own our lives and we can dispose of it as we please.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jts]

The question about duels came up in that other Objectivist discussion website, OO - Should duels be legal?.

[anthony]

Invalid query. Between rational men there can't be any conflict that cannot be sorted out without force - or simply walked away from.

To put your life up for grabs is immoral.

No it is not. Each person owns his own life and body and can dispose of it, provided no hazard are harm is imposed on an uninvolved person.

Nope. The question is posed as a moral one (presumably rationally selfish) preceding what you're 'allowed' to do with ("dispose of") your body and life.

All it comes down to, is to live by the principle of the standard of life - or to kill and be killed like any stronger/weaker predator in the wild.

In practical terms there is no way to prevent suicide. Like I said we own our lives and we can dispose of it as we please.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In practical AND moral terms, a morality based on man's life will not condone casual, arbitrary death: one's own, or some other's by one's own hand. A self-contradiction. Whether it is to settle scores with someone, or for money and others' entertainment.

Suicide is the ultimate extreme, and a decision of morality conditional upon life becoming impossible to bear, for causes one can't forseeably ever control.

It goes without saying that the government has nothing to do with it. You are missing the distinction between individual rights and a rational morality.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It goes without saying that the government has nothing to do with it. You are missing the distinction between individual rights and a rational morality.

Tony,

The opening question was about legality, so I can see how people can miss the connection between morality and law.

But there is a causal connection. A morality of good is a precondition of freedom. If people in general are committed to bullying, freedom does not flourish irrespective of what the law says.

I want to qualify rational for this comment (notice I said "morality of good" and not "rational morality"). I believe "rational" must be based on good to result in freedom. And my meaning of good starts with considering individual human life as a value and individual human death as something to be avoided as much as possible. There are exceptions and contexts, but if that is not the general starting point to build "rational" on, it doesn't matter how rational people get. They will end up with a government that engages in mass killing of its own citizens (and others, too).

People have to want to be good and not want to bully by conscious choice, even when their lower brains make them feel like bullying. That has to come before rational and before law. Otherwise, a moral code and a legal code are nothing but words that evaporate easily with the appearance of a charismatic bully leader.

btw - Within this framework, outlawing suicide is the same as outlawing overeating or laziness. It is pointless. But I can see outlawing suicide as a temporary measure in dealing with brainwashed people rescued from a suicide cult. Once their sanity has been restored, then I see no need for this even if some former members later do commit suicide. That's just what some people do.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Two "consenting" adults agree to fight "to the death"--in public. Only--one was blackmailed into it. That's just one possible problem. His dead body, out of sight, will be harvested for transplantable organs. He "consented" to that too.

If that's what individual rights theory can be devolved too, let's have a monarchy instead of bullshitting all over society about how great things will be if we are only allowed to be "consenting adults" in mutual murder pacts. If the true demarcation line between Objectivism and libertarianism is over this kind of thing, Ayn Rand was right to give libertarianism the shaft. Her morality is traduced in its coverage but she had one good enough to start with and build on. She had a philosophy that was much, much more than a political philosophy. If you want to be an "Objectivist" you have to at least study the catechism. If you want to be a libertarian all you have to do is call yourself one. These days you don't even have to think about natural rights theory or the non-initiation of force principle. While there's not much left of classical a la Ayn Rand Objectivism taken in toto as an intellectual and cultural force, read John Hosper's 1972 book Libertarianism to find out the extent libertarianism has evaporated. It was all downhill from then with abortive presidential campaign after abortive presidential campaign complete with infighting between the irrational and the more irrational. These days some canny Democrats are buffing up libertarian candidates for office in order to defeat their Republican opponents by slicing off some of their voters. Even if this is desirable, those libertarians are still being used by statists to advance statism.

--Brant

[Mikee]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe you are just describing a murder. Even if you have a signed contract the dead guy is not around to verify it wasn't coerced. So it's just murder.

What are the conditions you're thinking of for this to take place? Blood feud? Why speak of legality or morality when speculating about the totally irrational. Nature has irrationality covered, you get a Darwin award for it.

This related article might be of interest.

[anthony]

Michael: Oh, I see it now, I was thrown by "ethical question" in the header and fired away (I take some of that back, Bob).

If individual rights (a la Rand) lead from morality, and they in turn inform a legal code, I see a slippery slope with outlawing anything extraneous to them.

The sole purpose of minimal government is protection of one's rights from abuse--so the question is, can and should it protect one from "abuse" by oneself, in extreme circumstances? (Suicide after mentally brutal treatment, when not of sound mind). A tricky one. First off, who decides one is okay, and when - a state psychiatrist? Is the service paid for by income tax? And while they are about it, who else can be 'helped'?

Like you, I'm firmly of the opinion that there is nothing the government can do that private enterprise can't do better - and by moral choice. With govt completely out of the way, I easily imagine a private institution backed by wealthy funders who see worth in saving any desperately suicidal victims from themselves. They would be on the look out for such situations, identify such people, and (with legal permission from their families) be able to hold them for a period while they are being counselled. Very probable I think, and anything to avoid government interference.

[Brant Gaede]

Michael: Oh, I see it now, I was thrown by "ethical question" in the header and fired away (I take some of that back, Bob).

If individual rights (a la Rand) lead from morality, and they in turn inform a legal code, I see a slippery slope with outlawing anything.

The sole purpose of minimal government is protection of one's rights from abuse--so the question is, can and should it protect one from "abuse" by oneself, in extreme circumstances? (Suicide after brutal treatment, when not of sound mind). A tricky one. First off, who decides one is okay, and when - a state psychiatrist? Is the service paid for by income tax? Like you, I'm firmly of the opinion that there is nothing the government can do that private enterprise can't do better - and morally. With govt completely out of the way, I could imagine a private institution backed by wealthy citizens who see worth in saving any desperately suicidal victims from themselves. They would be on the look out for such situations, identify such people, and (with legal permission from their families) be able to hold them for a period while they are being counselled. A possibility I think, and anything to avoid government interference.

This whole discussion is sneaking in property rights as primary to all other rights including the right to life. This puts contract or civil law ahead of criminal law. This seems to me to be the primary argument for anarchy. No law except contract law enforced by private courts and such. The premise is there are no bad people, just bad contracts and those just hurt those under those contracts. So, I "consent" to fight to the death and get whacked down and helpless. My opponent then opens bidding for the "right" to come down into the arena and finish me off. (It's in the contract--the one I signed when I was mad and drunk.) The winner comes over with his ten-yo son. Gives the boy a club and the kid--WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!-- beats the brains out of my skull killing me. There are slippery slopes and slippery slopes. This one would be slippery with blood, brains and gore, just like Rome of yore.

--Brant

and the crowd roars!

[Brant Gaede]

With property rights as a primary we could go back to slavery by individuals voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. Or parents could have property rights in children and sell them off into prostitution. "Get your little girl here! Get your little girl here!" If you can't do that with your own children--horrors!--do it with your slaves or your slaves' children. Or just indulge yourself. Why do you think there's so much white blood in "black" folks?

--Brant

it might have been love too--go ask Jefferson about Sally

[DallasCowboys]

With property rights as a primary we could go back to slavery by individuals voluntarily selling themselves into slavery. Or parents could have property rights in children and sell them off into prostitution. "Get your little girl here! Get your little girl here!" If you can't do that with your own children--horrors!--do it with your slaves or your slaves' children. Or just indulge yourself. Why do you think there's so much white blood in "black" folks?

--Brant

it might have been love too--go ask Jefferson about Sally

Before I start, I apologzie to everyone for writing ethical question than saying if it should be legal. My question was meant purley in a legal sense. Now with regard to Brant's points. Three things. One, you introduced premises that I outlawed in my question, such as being drunk when you sign the papers. You also mentioned being mad when I signed the contract. Emotions can't be controlled so they can't be brought into the discussion. I may sign a big sports contract when I was feeling happy but regret it the next second, that doesn't mean I can bail out on my contract. Two, what defines signing oneself into slavery? If I want to sign myself into slavery as a rational being and not be paid for it then should not that be my choice? I don't see why someone would want to do that but it is their choice. Three, bringing children into the argument is unfair because when do children mature beyond the state of non-rational dependence. Children bring about a slippery slope in Objectivism, how can a parent treat their own child, what are the boundaries? I can't make my child go into prostitution but I can force them to eat their veggies. One is obviously far more extreme but where is the line drawn where I can't force my child into doing something.

Thanks,

David C.

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael: Oh, I see it now, I was thrown by "ethical question" in the header and fired away (I take some of that back, Bob).

If individual rights (a la Rand) lead from morality, and they in turn inform a legal code, I see a slippery slope with outlawing anything extraneous to them.

The sole purpose of minimal government is protection of one's rights from abuse--so the question is, can and should it protect one from "abuse" by oneself, in extreme circumstances? (Suicide after mentally brutal treatment, when not of sound mind). A tricky one. First off, who decides one is okay, and when - a state psychiatrist? Is the service paid for by income tax? And while they are about it, who else can be 'helped'?

Like you, I'm firmly of the opinion that there is nothing the government can do that private enterprise can't do better - and by moral choice. With govt completely out of the way, I easily imagine a private institution backed by wealthy funders who see worth in saving any desperately suicidal victims from themselves. They would be on the look out for such situations, identify such people, and (with legal permission from their families) be able to hold them for a period while they are being counselled. Very probable I think, and anything to avoid government interference.

If we have a right to our lives, then we have a right to end our lives. The only restriction is not to do it such a way as it endangers another party.