Ethical Question On Dueling and Gladiator Fighting

[Brant Gaede]

There is no such thing as "purely in a legal sense" except for shooting the bull and extant laws which have their own validating logic known as legal reasoning. This is harmlessly endemic in colleges where ignorance can talk to ignorance all night long (as long as there's enough beer ). The primary virtue of college is prolonging adolescence until the rational brain completes its physical development.

--Brant

[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

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.

I was illustrating the effects of the primacy of property rights over the right to life and how your original question came from that. The "children" were then used for a reductio ad absurdum of that.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Risking your own life or ending it on purpose is one thing. Purposely killing another person unnecessarily except in self defense is murder. That's the law. A million words of bs won't change that.

Dallas: Why do you think the law should be different?

[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?

No fair! You've jumped the context.

--Brant

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

[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

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion.

--Brant

[Selene]

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 slop

e 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.

David:

Children are virtually absent in the novel.

When I was engaging in my research on the Objectivist movement, the absence of children was glaring om her novels.

The only mention I know of was in Atlas Shrugged and it took place in Galt's Gulch.

The Young Mother

Character Analysis

This is actually the only good mother we meet in the entire book, standing in dramatic contrast to the book's other prominent mother, Mrs. Rearden. Actually, Mrs. Taggart probably wasn't a bad mother, but we are talking here about mothers living under the looters' system, so she doesn't really count. At any rate, the Young Mother accompanied her husband to Atlantis in order to raise their children in a positive environment. The mother describes her work as a job like any other in Atlantis: productive work demanding both values and the use of the mind.

I have always believed that this was the second fatal flaw with Objectivism and it's ability to penetrate the prime voter election bases which are family oriented.

A...

[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?

No fair! You've jumped the context.

--Brant

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion.

--Brant

Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

[Jules Troy]

What? No one wants to see Obama vs Jet Li?

?

[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

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion.

--Brant

Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

That is not what initiating force means. You can cause someone to die using force in self defense.

You responded to my post which has its own context which is not the post that started this thread. All threads contain a cascade of contexts or a river of thoughts. I made an error up thread by not noticing David had included the word "sober" in the first posting. This was not respectful of his context but essentially an innocent mistake. You riding this dead horse of yours to a hoped for conclusion ignores that it isn't going anywhere. Or, think of it as trying to correct a parallel parking mistake by not simply pulling out and starting over. You can argue interminably with a Greg over not much, but not with me.

--Brant

[Mikee]

What? No one wants to see Obama vs Jet Li?

I liked it Jules. I gave it "best reply". But there isn't a button for that...

[Selene]

Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

I am assuming you are being flippant about this statement on deaths in boxing.

[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?

No fair! You've jumped the context.

--Brant

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion.

--Brant

Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

That is not what initiating force means. You can cause someone to die using force in self defense.

You responded to my post which has its own context which is not the post that started this thread. All threads contain a cascade of contexts or a river of thoughts. I made an error up thread by not noticing David had included the word "sober" in the first posting. This was not respectful of his context but essentially an innocent mistake. You riding this dead horse of yours to a hoped for conclusion ignores that it isn't going anywhere. Or, think of it as trying to correct a parallel parking mistake by not simply pulling out and starting over. You can argue interminably with a Greg over not much, but not with me.

--Brant

Yes, I should have pulled out of the parking space, but I was afraid not only that someone might grab that space but that I might pull too far out and hit the dead horse or else be swamped by that cascade of contexts, not to mention the river of thoughts we're experiencing with the new climate change.

[BaalChatzaf]

Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

I am assuming you are being flippant about this statement on deaths in boxing.

In boxing the idea is not to kill your opponent, but to either out punch him (win by a decision) or render him unable to fight on, but still leave him alive. In general boxing is not a battle to the death, as were many of the matches in the Roman Arena.

[Jules Troy]

What? No one wants to see Obama vs Jet Li?

I liked it Jules. I gave it "best reply". But there isn't a button for that...

[Jules Troy]

? the visual is pretty good!

[Mikee]

the visual is pretty good!

A "Kiss of the Dragon" ending...

[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

So Spartacus can initiate force, but Mike Tyson cannot?

The context is a fight to the death, not merely a fight and not war. You are denaturing the discussion which deserves a conclusion. With a conclusion we could go on to consider boxing in the context of the conclusion.

--Brant

Forgive me. I took the context to be "two guys initiating force which is against the law therefore." Boxing and fighting obviously never result in death and therefore have nothing to do with the central issue of initiating force, which means causing someone to die..

That is not what initiating force means. You can cause someone to die using force in self defense.

You responded to my post which has its own context which is not the post that started this thread. All threads contain a cascade of contexts or a river of thoughts. I made an error up thread by not noticing David had included the word "sober" in the first posting. This was not respectful of his context but essentially an innocent mistake. You riding this dead horse of yours to a hoped for conclusion ignores that it isn't going anywhere. Or, think of it as trying to correct a parallel parking mistake by not simply pulling out and starting over. You can argue interminably with a Greg over not much, but not with me.

--Brant

Yes, I should have pulled out of the parking space, but I was afraid not only that someone might grab that space but that I might pull too far out and hit the dead horse or else be swamped by that cascade of contexts, not to mention the river of thoughts we're experiencing with the new climate change.

~LOL~