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

[GhostWriter16]

I'd much rather see world leaders play lacrosse to the death to resolve disputes like some Indian tribes used to do. It would make for far more entertaining TV.

And no more wars.

It will never happen, of course, but if it did we would be obliged to support it.

 

[JohannaK]

There is this thrill in the idea of a duel that just isnt there in lacrosse matches.

 

[HannibalBarka]

only if the fight is aired on TV
Now seriously, I am definetly against it for the same reason I am against selling body parts and slavery and very cautious about euthanasia.
If there is any thing that should be considered sacred it's Humanlife and every permission to take this sacrality must have very very good reasons behind it. Solving one's problem by getting killed is just not good enough, it's actully not good at all as I still don't see how would the death of one person "solves" the problem of another.
So, NO NO NO.

 

[Hygro]

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.

You are absolutely correct if believe liberalist philosophy is true. I do not. I partially do, but I don't believe that philosophy captures a lot of what makes us human. Our mirror neurons, our attachments, make it such that we are highly likely to continue the pain and abuse that has been endemic in our species since agriculture. This is especially true to the development of children who having close connections to those who died from dueling.

So my externality argument hinges outside of normal economic reasoning, because it doesn't place an absolute premium on the individual/ no harm Mills's-utility liberalist concept.

 

[Core Imposter]

Don't you all think that restoration of the duel would be a better way for modern drug gangs to resolve disputes than the means now being utilized?

Mayor Emanuel of Chicago should go on televison and challenge the gangs to "man up", fight like men and offer to stand up to them with a brace of smooth bore duelling pistols himself. Restore honor.

That would be leadership.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You are absolutely correct if believe liberalist philosophy is true. I do not.

Well, I don't either. That's why I'm a little confused as to why you're arguing in the framework of it? At least as far as I can tell?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Don't you all think that restoration of the duel would be a better way for modern drug gangs to resolve disputes than the means now being utilized?

Mayor Emanuel of Chicago should go on televison and challenge the gangs to "man up", fight like men and offer to stand up to them with a brace of smooth bore duelling pistols himself. Restore honor.

That would be leadership.

The drug gang violence would best be reduced by legalizing drugs.

 

[Archbob]

only if the fight is aired on TV
Now seriously, I am definetly against it for the same reason I am against selling body parts and slavery and very cautious about euthanasia.
If there is any thing that should be considered sacred it's Humanlife and every permission to take this sacrality must have very very good reasons behind it. Solving one's problem by getting killed is just not good enough, it's actully not good at all as I still don't see how would the death of one person "solves" the problem of another.
So, NO NO NO.

From a purely Atheist and scientific standpoint, there is nothing special about human life.

 

[TomYo689]

That view isn't atheist or scientific

 

[ace99]

The loss of the practice of dueling is one of the great tragedy's of human history.

 

[Agent327]

The loss of the practice of spelling is one of the great tragedy's of human history.

Fixed.

 

[TomYo689]

wat r u tryn 2 sai jelen idk y u b chng th wrds in hes msg

 

[ace99]

haters b hatin

 

[GhostWriter16]

I just noticed the question was "Is it wrong" not "Should it be illegal" so my answer would therefore change to "Yes, it is wrong." Nobody should fight to the death. Theoretically it shouldn't be illegal, however.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

While I don't think it is a good thing, I'm inclined to allow it so long as either party is free to withdraw his consent and end the duel at any time.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

While I don't think it is a good thing, I'm inclined to allow it so long as either party is free to withdraw his consent and end the duel at any time.

Nah, then it would hardly be to death. The right way is to bury both contenders to the knee so nobody can flee and give them a pair of clubs, as it was done in the old good Spain:

Spoiler :

 

[Agent327]

No comment.

wat r u tryn 2 sai jelen idk y u b chng th wrds in hes msg

I will repeat it for your education:

The loss of the practice of spelling is one of the great tragedy's of human history.

Theoretically it shouldn't be illegal, however.

Theoretically? Do elaborate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I sincerely hope you're joking Jeelen, but knowing your posting style I think not.

 

[GhostWriter16]

While I don't think it is a good thing, I'm inclined to allow it so long as either party is free to withdraw his consent and end the duel at any time.

Yes, this needs to be allowed for as well.

Theoretically? Do elaborate.

Leoreth does have a pointthat consent can be a bit shaky here, and that in some cases it would be hard to tell if the person was pressured or legitimately consented. There's also the troubling aspect of mental illness, it could be argued that anyone who wants to participate in such a duel is at least likely not mentally sound.

That said, in a theoretical case where both participants are willing, not-mentally-ill adults I do not think they should be prohibited from doing it.

 

[Yeekim]

If there were two individuals pig-headed enough to really insist on solving an argument by means of a deathmatch, it would not merely be right for them to do so - it would be highly recommended. With hopeful outcome of them both expiring.

Darwin Awards FTW!