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

[ParkCungHee]

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.

Yes, but those exist at the very least as a possibility in non-lethal competition, or any action undertaken by an individual who risks his own death.

Plus, shouldn't we view the human life as something kind of valuable and not let it be wasted over some dispute?

Well, yes. But that's sort of my point. That is the crux of the matter that I'm getting at: I don't think the externalities matter all that much, but the human lives involved are, even if the participants do not think so.

I thought you were an anarchist?

Assume any time I make a comment like this it's got the usual caveat of "While I cannot consent in good conscience to the use of force yada, yada, yada" and that I'm speaking in the context of the discussion.

A debate on whether or not the concept of illegality should exist is a separate matter from this thread.

 

[squadbroken]

I agree with Leoreth. There are a whole slew of reasons why this is bad, one of the biggest being that many people who would otherwise not do such a thing wind up being pressured into it by their peers or by their own sense of honor.

It's not even close to being the same thing as high-impact sports or things like rock-climbing or sky-diving; a duel to the death means that one person MUST die. In those sports and activities, people make a concerted effort to protect themselves from injury or death.

 

[TomYo689]

I am pretty sure there's a good record of duels where both survive. Is this thread requiring that one must die?

 

[Gigaz]

I am pretty sure there's a good record of duels where both survive. Is this thread requiring that one must die?

That's true but I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion. The whole point of a duel is that each participant risks his life.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Why would you want to fight to the death because you can't be civil and disagree with someone on something?

 

[squadbroken]

I am pretty sure there's a good record of duels where both survive. Is this thread requiring that one must die?

Considering the title of the thread contains the words "fight to the death", I assume it does require such.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Mortal Kombat is ungentlemanly. I demand smooth bore pistols....the standard duel rules, If Im gonna go down I want it done Pushkin style.

 

[TomYo689]

Well ok :|

 

[ParkCungHee]

Considering the title of the thread contains the words "fight to the death", I assume it does require such.

Not necessarily, dueling tradition does allow for satisfaction without death. For example, there is a tradition in gun dueling that if both contestants miss, the challenger may choose whether or not he has received satisfaction.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think that sort of solutions must be left for D'Artagnan, the Zorro and such sort of people who can do it with some charm and elegance, OTOH most people would convert it in a pathetic and sad spectacle with some awkward fighting and finally one begging for clemency. So not a very good show.

 

[squadbroken]

Not necessarily, dueling tradition does allow for satisfaction without death. For example, there is a tradition in gun dueling that if both contestants miss, the challenger may choose whether or not he has received satisfaction.

A fight to the death is far more specific than just a "duel", which can cover a wide variety of rules.

A fight to the death is, by definition, only over when one person is dead.

 

[JohannaK]

I advocate then for the reinstitution of dueling as a legal way to solve interpersonal disputes.

 

[azzaman333]

I don't know if it'd be wrong, but it'd definitely be stupid.

 

[Carras Dad]

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.

i think that champion system only ever worked, if at all, when both groups were approximately the same strenght.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

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.

That really doesn't make any sense.

 

[ArguCa]

if a person accept to fight to the death, he probably has some mental problems, and he can not be count as adult, IMO.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

You could still refuse.

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 this.

That said....

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

This is a fair point. I still maintain that in theory you should be allowed to fight to the death if both parties agree, but maybe it doesn't work in practice.

Family, friends, and all the other stuff is absolutely irrelevant because there are all sorts of activities that are legal that "Bring people distress" and emotional harm is a really weak basis for law anyway.

 

[TomYo689]

It's a similar discussion of suicide and right to die

 

[GhostWriter16]

Assume any time I make a comment like this it's got the usual caveat of "While I cannot consent in good conscience to the use of force yada, yada, yada" and that I'm speaking in the context of the discussion.

A debate on whether or not the concept of illegality should exist is a separate matter from this thread.

Well, I don't know what kind of anarchism you subscribe to, and I'm no expert on any of them (I know more about right-wing, pro-property versions than the others) I know that at least some types of anarchism object not to rules at all, but to rulers, and unnecessary laws. Right-libertarian anarchists (Or minarchists) would be fine with law (Although not enforced by the government in the former case) prohibiting actions which actually have victims, such as murder, theft, fraud, exc. A consensual duel wouldn't really apply the same way, however.

That really doesn't make any sense.

If George W. had settled his vendetta with Saddam in the dueling ring rather than in the Iraq War, we could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

While there were bad aspects of duels absolutely, the good part of them is that it gave rulers and overlords a way to vent their anger without the destruction of a modern war.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I advocate then for the reinstitution of dueling as a legal way to solve interpersonal disputes.

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.