Is it wrong to fight to the death if both people agree to it

[Archbob]

Lets say two men have a severe disagreement and can't come to a solution. They agree that the only way to resolve this problem is through Mortal Kombat. They both, while not under the influence of anything, decide that they will and must fight to the death in Mortal Kombat and the victor's views prevail in the disagreement.

In this case, it is wrong to defeat and then finish your opponent?

 

[TomYo689]

Only if they are consenting adults and use protection. Then yes they can go at it as much as they want.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm not sure duels are allowed anymore. Like most nice things they got abused and were taken away.


I guess there might be ways around it. Both of you borrow a crazy amount of money from an ultra violent mobster, then play a nice game of poker with each other. The loser is pretty much a dead man walking right?

Kind of like prostitution is legal if you film it and claim to have made an adult film. The money exchange is because the woman is a "paid actress".

 

[MobBoss]

Lets say two men have a severe disagreement and can't come to a solution. They agree that the only way to resolve this problem is through Mortal Kombat. They both, while not under the influence of anything, decide that they will and must fight to the death in Mortal Kombat and the victor's views prevail in the disagreement.

In this case, it is wrong to defeat and then finish your opponent?

We dont believe in rule by Thunderdome.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yes, it probably is. But I'm all for it.

 

[Archbob]

We dont believe in rule by Thunderdome.

2 consenting adults. Why deny the liberty and freedom as long as no 3rd party is hurt?

 

[Gigaz]

2 consenting adults. Why deny the liberty and freedom as long as no 3rd party is hurt?

Because there is consent and consent. If you have the choice between a fight to the death and eternal humiliation you'd probably think that it would be nice if duels were outlawed.

 

[MobBoss]

2 consenting adults. Why deny the liberty and freedom as long as no 3rd party is hurt?

How do you figure no 3rd party is hurt by this? Dont these 2 have families or people that care for them that would be hurt by it?

2 people beating each other to death over a dispute isnt liberty or freedom.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed. If you can't agree, agree to disagree. That is liberty and freedom.

Lets say two men have a severe disagreement and can't come to a solution.

Although plenty people may think otherwise, even if both parties agree it is quite wrong.

 

[Archbob]

Indeed. If you can't agree, agree to disagree. That is liberty and freedom.

If both people want to fight to the death, then there is liberty and freedom in letting them do it. Government should not interfere.

 

[Camikaze]

Bad premise; you can't agree to fight to the death, because any purported agreement is evidence in itself that you are incapable of giving real consent.

 

[Hygro]

I think there are too many negative externalities associated with the violent killings of people for this to be okay.

 

[JohannaK]

It would be interesting. Better do it in international waters, however.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think there are too many negative externalities associated with the violent killings of people for this to be okay.

OK, could you elaborate on this? Because while I agree fights to the death should be illegal, I don't think it can be justified in it's cost of negative externalities.

 

[Kozmos]

It is high time for televised deathmatches.

 

[GhostWriter16]

OK, could you elaborate on this? Because while I agree fights to the death should be illegal, I don't think it can be justified in it's cost of negative externalities.

I thought you were an anarchist?

Anyway, if this allows our overlords a way to kill someone who actually consents to it, and limits it to a small number of people, rather than bombing thousands and thousands in the Middle East, its a good idea.

Assuming (This is admittedly unlikely) that both parties agree, both are mentally sound, both parties actually sign paperwork to that effct (So you can't just kill someone and say "It was justified, he let me") and no third parties were exposed to any fighting against their will, this should probably be legal. I don't think any two mentally sound people are going to do this very often, however

 

[Gigaz]

I thought you were an anarchist?

Anyway, if this allows our overlords a way to kill someone who actually consents to it, and limits it to a small number of people, rather than bombing thousands and thousands in the Middle East, its a good idea.

Assuming (This is admittedly unlikely) that both parties agree, both are mentally sound, both parties actually sign paperwork to that effct (So you can't just kill someone and say "It was justified, he let me") and no third parties were exposed to any fighting against their will, this should probably be legal. I don't think any two mentally sound people are going to do this very often, however

Would you still keep this opinion if the year was 1850 and you'd be expected to defend your honor with a gun?
Duels were legal and they were outlawed for very good reasons.

 

[FriendlyFire]

2 people beating each other to death over a dispute isnt liberty or freedom.

Better 2 leaders fighting to the death then a war in which millions, thousands die ?
Some kind of Sanction death match replacing conventional war, which would only be authorized for nations.

 

[Leoreth]

The chance that a stronger party uses social pressure to get a free murder out of such an arrangement is just too great.

 

[Goodfella]

OK, could you elaborate on this? Because while I agree fights to the death should be illegal, I don't think it can be justified in it's cost of negative externalities.

Friends and family will be upset, the investigation, there's always a ton of expenses anytime someone gets killed, whatever goods either person produced, etc. Plus, shouldn't we view the human life as something kind of valuable and not let it be wasted over some dispute?

Better 2 leaders fighting to the death then a war in which millions, thousands die ?
Some kind of Sanction death match replacing conventional war, which would only be authorized for nations.

And when is this situation even remotely plausible?