Death sports

[airborne]

Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted?

E.g. A sport where two opponents fight until one dies.

I don't see a problem with this politically, given that both fighters granted consent.

Edit: Sorry, posted it in Ethics by mistake. Should be in Politics.

Edited November 6, 2007 by airborne

[Robert J. Kolker]

Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted?

E.g. A sport where two opponents fight until one dies.

I don't see a problem with this politically, given that both fighters granted consent.

Edit: Sorry, posted it in Ethics by mistake. Should be in Politics.

It could be in either place. There is no substantial ethical or political argument against dueling to the death provided

(1) both parties consent and are capable of informed consent

(2) it is done under conditions that would preclude injury or death to uninvolved third parties.

If these conditions are met, I see no reason why we cannot meet each other at dawn.

Bob Kolker

[KendallJ]

Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted?

E.g. A sport where two opponents fight until one dies.

I don't see a problem with this politically, given that both fighters granted consent.

Edit: Sorry, posted it in Ethics by mistake. Should be in Politics.

The more interesting question is actually the ethical one. That is, what would make a rational individual choose to participate in such an event on the basis that the activity is an example of "flourishing", i.e. life-enhancing. Are there any contexts for which this is true?

The fact that something is legal (politically), does not make it moral in any case (ethically).

[Robert J. Kolker]

The more interesting question is actually the ethical one. That is, what would make a rational individual choose to participate in such an event on the basis that the activity is an example of "flourishing", i.e. life-enhancing. Are there any contexts for which this is true?

Is failure to flourish an ethical or moral defect? Maybe same people are speed freaks or danger freaks. Why climb Mt. Everest?

Why bunjee jump? Why sky dive? Why deep sea dive? Perhaps for some "living on the edge" is a positive value.

Bob Kolker

[KendallJ]

Is failure to flourish an ethical or moral defect? Maybe same people are speed freaks or danger freaks. Why climb Mt. Everest?

Why bunjee jump? Why sky dive? Why deep sea dive? Perhaps for some "living on the edge" is a positive value.

Not at all Bob, and I've weighed in on those particular topics for "unsafe" activities.

However, what's different here is that rather than participating in something with an outside probability that you might die, and taking measures to prevent such a death (such as in skydiving, which I've done a few times, and which can be quite a safe activity), this particular activity, by definition results in someone's death.

In that sense you analogies don't fly. Frankly I think risk taking for the sake of risk taking shows some moral or at least psychological defect. And it seems to me that it's hard not to consider this a prime example of that.

[Robert J. Kolker]

In that sense you analogies don't fly. Frankly I think risk taking for the sake of risk taking shows some moral or at least psychological defect. And it seems to me that it's hard not to consider this a prime example of that.

A lust for danger is a preference. To be or not to be. Live or die. Alternatives from which one can chose. Most people prefer to live, but not all. There is no accounting for all tastes and preferences in a purely rational fashion.

May I ask you a question: Do you think suicide is immoral or unethical? If people own their bodies and their lives why is it wrong to risk them in any chosen way? Anything we do to ourselves is within our rights (moral right, not legal right). We are not accountable to any one but ourselves.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

Do you think suicide is immoral or unethical?

Suicide is at best outside of the domain of morality. Given that morality is a code of values that you choose and the concept of value is sensible only in terms of existence, if you reject the fundamental choice and fact, i.e. if you reject morality itself, then the question of the morality of suicide is meaningless. If you do choose to exist and existence is thus your ultimate purpose -- if you have a standard of value, and the concept of morality does make sense -- then suicide is stunningly immoral.

Remember, morality is not based on the libertarian "anything you want is okay as long as you don't initiate force" credo.

[KendallJ]

A lust for danger is a preference. To be or not to be. Live or die. Alternatives from which one can chose. Most people prefer to live, but not all. There is no accounting for all tastes and preferences in a purely rational fashion.

May I ask you a question: Do you think suicide is immoral or unethical?

Well, as David said the choice to live is outside of ethics. That choice is what brings value into being.

However, recognize what you're saying Bob. Do you really think that a true "lust for danger", i.e. a true desire to not actually live, is what most people do when they go sky-diving or heli-skiing?

I submit to you that this is bogus, and if true, a sign of realy psychological problems.

I believe what you call a "lust for danger" is really a lust for the thrill of perceived risk or danger. That is, most peole actually really desperately want to live through something like the sports you mention, and in fact take precautions to make those sports as safe as possilbe and in many cases are safer doing them than such things as driving. You are mixing perspectives.

The person who truly "lusts for danger" for real danger would not take such precautions, and if they desire to live, then they are either psychologically disturbed or downright immoral. Someone who plays russian roulette with a loaded handgun is either disturbed or immoral. A death match seems to me to be nothing other than another form of russian roulette.

Those people who want to die and practice such things are amoral (i.e. outside of morality). But they cannot escape the consequences of their desire to die or indifference to life. Those who want to life and still do such things are dysfunctional or immoral.

[intellectualammo]

Suicide is at best outside of the domain of morality. Given that morality is a code of values that you choose and the concept of value is sensible only in terms of existence, if you reject the fundamental choice and fact, i.e. if you reject morality itself, then the question of the morality of suicide is meaningless. If you do choose to exist and existence is thus your ultimate purpose -- if you have a standard of value, and the concept of morality does make sense -- then suicide is stunningly immoral.

Your comment interests me. I'm still trying to understand it, but do you think it is consonant with what Dr. Peikoff says here? I don't think anyone in this quote is rejecting morality or the ultimate standard of life in this, by commiting suicide, because to continue living would be worse than death, because it would be a "living death" (they are rejecting the "living death" by commiting suicide, a "tragic reaffirmation" of their ultimate standard of value: life):

I want to mention first that suicide is sometimes justified, according to Objectivism. Suicide is justified when man's life, owing to circumstances outside of a person's control, is no longer possible; an example might be a person with a painful terminal illness, or a prisoner in a concentration camp who sees no chance of escape. In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: "Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute."

Edited November 7, 2007 by intellectualammo

[KendallJ]

Your comment interests me. I'm still trying to understand it, but do you think it is consonant with what Dr. Peikoff says here? I don't think anyone in this quote is rejecting morality or the ultimate standard of life in this, by commiting suicide, because to continue living would be worse than death, because it would be a "living death" (they are rejecting the "living death" by commiting suicide, a "tragic reaffirmation" of their ultimate standard of value: life):

Steve,

I think David is talking of suicide in a different context. The one Peikoff gives is as suicide in a very specific context. That is, given the choice to live (which is where value, and thus ethics stems) it is possible to make a choice to take one's life if one is unable to live qua man.

However, I believe Davids reference is to suicide as a broader example of the choice not to live at all, which negates ethics all together. It would be represented by this quote from Tara Smith's book Viable Values:

Life's status as the standard of value is a "preethical" fact insofar as it holds for all living organisms, while ethics is applicable only for being that can deliberately directly their actions...

When it comes to human beings and moral value, however, it is important to understand that life is the standard of value if a person seeks life. Having rejected the idea of intrinsic value in chapter three, we cannot treat life as intrinsically valuable. Rather, the existence of value is conditional. Value arises for those who seek to maintain their lives. It is only for people who wish to live that we can intelligibly distinguish things as good for them and bad for them relative to that purpose.

[intellectualammo]

Steve,

I think David is talking of suicide in a different context.

Ahh...that's what I needed to understand what he was saying more. Thank you Kendall! *Steve writes down yet another book of Tara Smith's he wants to read...

[Robert J. Kolker]

Remember, morality is not based on the libertarian "anything you want is okay as long as you don't initiate force" credo.

Perhaps your morality is that way. I base my morality on self-ownership. I own my body and my time. Everyone else owns their bodies and time, so I am bound to respect their property rights as long as they respect mine.

One consequence of self-ownership is the right of disposal. I can dispose of my time and body in any manner whatsoever as long as I do not interfere with the rights of others to do that also, under the proviso that they do not interfere with me. I have the right to use force to prevent, punish or deter others from imposing their will upon me. One mode of disposal of one's body is to kill one's self. That is to say suicide. Suicide is a logical possibility given the premise of self-ownership. One need not commit suicide, if one prefers to live. However one may commit suicide when one no longer desires to live for whatever reason that one deems sufficient. As long as the mode of suicide does not impose force, hazard or financial burden on others one is free to end one's life. If my life is truly mine, then I can end it before Nature does. It so happens that I am healthy and content with my lot. I keep busy, I do useful things and I have saved enough to fund my doings. The only unwanted burden I bear is what the government imposes on me.

I also want to live long enough to hold my great grand children. Time will tell whether I get to do this or not.

Now I will turn this around. If someone else wants to commit suicide (I assume that the someone is competent enough to make that decision for himself) I positively will NOT interfere. As long as his mode of suicide does not present a danger or hazard to me and mine why should I interfere?

This is one of my basic principles: What is yours is yours, what is his is his and what is mine is mine. This includes life itself.

Self-ownership, the true manifestation of liberty and freedom. It is the right to property carried to its logical conclusion. What is mine is mine.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

Perhaps your morality is that way.

Yeah, I'm aware that your morality is based on libertarian hedonism. It's an irrational morality, and as long as you adhere to the NIF part and do pay your debts, it won't be necessary for me to call the cops on you.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Perhaps your morality is that way.Yeah, I'm aware that your morality is based on libertarian hedonism. It's an irrational morality, and as long as you adhere to the NIF part and do pay your debts, it won't be necessary for me to call the cops on you.

My ethics and morality are based on property, sir. If I were a mere pleasure seeker, I would not give a damn about the rights and property of others.

And what do you find objectionable about my Axiom:

What is mine is mine, what is yours is yours and what is his is his. It is a special case of the axiom of identity.

Getting back to the subject: If two persons (of the age of consent) want to fight to the death in a manner that does not endanger me or mine, why should I be concerned? On what basis would I interfere? It is not my business, given the assumptions I have made. Likewise, I would not interfere with anyone committing suicide as long as they do it in a manner that is safe to me and mine. I definitely disapprove of suicide bombers (for example) because they want to take others with them. That I will not sit still for.

You know, if we take really good care of ourselves we have a good chance of living 25,000 days. Why should I was even a fraction of one of my few days worrying or judging matters that are of no concern to me. So, I always make one preliminary judgment: does the fact before me have anything to do with the health, safety, prosperity of me and mine. If I judge that the fact has none of these virtues, I tend to not give it any weight. There more more things in the world than we have time to care about, so we must prioritize. I prioritize my way. You prioritize your way.

I am a prudent non-predator. I mean no harm and I come in peace. I earn my keep and I don't bother anyone I don't have to bother. How can you fault that?

Bob Kolker

[Inspector]

And what do you find objectionable about my Axiom:

What is mine is mine, what is yours is yours and what is his is his. It is a special case of the axiom of identity.

Well for one thing it's not an axiom in the same definition of the word that identity is an axiom.

[KendallJ]

My ethics and morality are based on property, sir. If I were a mere pleasure seeker, I would not give a damn about the rights and property of others.

But if you were a mere pleasure seeker who respected property rights, your morality "based upon property" would have nothing to say about that either, isn't that correct?

So by what standard can you say that being a pleasure seeker is "merely"? That is, why do you judge pleasure seeking in any way differently than any other course of action, as long as you don't bother anyone and no one bothers you. If you or ayone else actually were, it woudl be no different than whatever it is you are now, according to your "morality". You seem slightly offended at the implication of being a "pleasure seeker" but based upon your code, you dont' have a leg to stand on with that "judgement".

Edited November 7, 2007 by KendallJ

[DavidOdden]

How can you fault that?

Because it's a lousy foundation for morality. It's fine for a legal code, but morality is broader than how you interact with other people. Your foundation for morality is corrupt. Morality is not a social construct based on other people, it is a personal one based on your life.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Because it's a lousy foundation for morality. It's fine for a legal code, but morality is broader than how you interact with other people. Your foundation for morality is corrupt. Morality is not a social construct based on other people, it is a personal one based on your life.

My morality is based on the well being of me and mine. What is yours based on? Anything much past what is good for me and mine holds little interest to me. If I were on a desert island my first order of business would be to figure out how to stay alive. That is because I prefer living to dying. The second order of business is to find a way off of the island. That is because more of my needs can be met in society than in isolation. I am interested in what is good for me and mine and achieving it without resorting to force, fraud or foul play. How corrupt is that? What I am not interested in is Perfection. Good enough is good enough for me. It might not be good enough for you, but that is your problem, not mine.

My motives are very personal. Motive 1 --- avoid pain and danger to me and mine. Motive 2 --- find a modus vivendi in which I can be content with my lot. Not very ambitious, I grant, but my motives have kept me alive and healthy over seventy years. What works works. That is a special instance of the Axiom of Identity. If you have greater ambitions and goals than I have, then bless you and may you succeed in your righteous endeavors.

Bob Kolker

[KendallJ]

My morality is based on the well being of me and mine. What is yours based on?

Well, wait a minute. A moment ago you just said it was based upon property. Which is it? Well-being or property?

I am interested in what is good for me and mine and achieving it without resorting to force, fraud or foul play. How corrupt is that?

Yeah, but that is circular as far as ethics is concerned. Saying that your morality is based upon what is good for you, is saying that "what is good is good". How do you determine what the good is? Whatever you want it to be? The good is whatever anyone wants it to be? Then how do you get upset with yourself if your choice is to seek bachannalian pleasure or be productive? You can't? By what principle do you evaluate, and can't that principle be applied to anyone in general?

[As an aside, any budding Objectivist who still wonders why Rand rails against the libertarian collapsing of ethics to the false ethical concept of liberty would be well advised to see that consequences of that thinking in action. This is truly fascinating to me.]

Edited November 7, 2007 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Ahh...that's what I needed to understand what he was saying more. Thank you Kendall! *Steve writes down yet another book of Tara Smith's he wants to read...

Steve, you're coming to the Seminar right. Chapter 2 of AR's Normative Ethics is a nice summary of the entirely of Viable Values. Tara is a great read. She is the next level of detail in articulating the Objectivist ethics after OPAR. Very highly recommended.

[Moebius]

Well, wait a minute. A moment ago you just said it was based upon property. Which is it? Well-being or property?

I think he's saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn't really contradict his previous statement.

[KendallJ]

I think he's saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn't really contradict his previous statement.

I assume by protecting you mean (as he implies) protecting from others. So after he has his property protected from others, what then? Protecting his property and working toward his well being are two different things.

He seems to imply that anything then it ok, given he's protected it. But then he implies that being a pleasure seeker is a bad thing. I'm asking him to tell me how he decides that given a pleasure seeker who has protected his own property.

Let's let him clarify shall we. It wholly does contradict his statements.

Edited November 7, 2007 by KendallJ

[JMeganSnow]

Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted?

No, because you cannot waive your fundamental rights, only procedural rights. Let's use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary. Likewise you cannot voluntarily consent to be murdered or killed, because being murdered or killed also contradicts the concept voluntary. If someone fights back, (as in a death match) they didn't exactly consent to be killed, now, did they?

Advocates of dueling are using the term consent as a stolen concept; they are ignoring the antecedents of what makes consent possible and using it loosely as "whatever you once said you agreed to". However, there are limits on the things that you can actually consent to, regardless of what you think you can say.

If you guys want to discuss Mr. Kolker's personal morality, take it to PM's. I can't exactly split this thread into one titled "Bob Kolker's Morality". This is a board about Objectivism and ideas, not personalities. Don't try to convince Bob he's wrong, explain to other people *why* he is wrong.

[DavidOdden]

I think he's saying that since everything he is (mind, body, etc) is his own property, his morality is based on protecting the said property. It doesn't really contradict his previous statement.

The closest that I think he has ever come to having a valid foundation for morality is based on the statement "My morality is based on the well being of me and mine". The "and mine" add-on is pointless verbal fluff -- I don't know what it even refers to. Hank Rearden had a wife who was rotten, but she would count as "his", so by Bob's morality, he would have to protect her (from....). If we shave off his pointless verbal wart (and using the flexibility of English grammar w.r.t. possessive pronouns), then we could reduce his morality to "My morality is based on my well being". Now here is where the standard plugs for Tara Smith's two books are inserted, and I will assume familiarity with her argument. This what he would be saying, if he had said what he really meant, is "My morality is based on my life". I can get behind that position. Then we can and should ask for any choice, "Does this choice further my ultimate goal, of living?". Property cannot be the basis of morality, but it is something that's necessary to reach your goal. Water is also necessary for that goal, but water is not the basis of morality. Well, not a rational morality.

Faced with that realization that life is the basis of morality, it's clear that suicide is the ultimate immoral choice. And yet, Bob holds that suicide is morally just hunky dory. A and not A.

[KendallJ]

No, because you cannot waive your fundamental rights, only procedural rights. Let's use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary. Likewise you cannot voluntarily consent to be murdered or killed, because being murdered or killed also contradicts the concept voluntary. If someone fights back, (as in a death match) they didn't exactly consent to be killed, now, did they?

Jenni, agree with your first example of voluntarily becoming a slave. However, not sure how that applies to voluntary death. I have a right for instance to commit suicide, but I don't have a right to have someone else kill me? In the first example I still exist as a person, so create a contradiction. In the 2nd I don't set that up. How is agreeing to entertain the possiblity of death not simply an extension of my choice to live, as such (i.e. to dispose of that life as I see fit). Life is not a fundamental right, it si the choice that brings the idea of value and rights into being. It is a pre-ethical choice, and there is no should about it. I can certainly not choose it. It is only in the choosing of it, that I create the idea of value, a moral code, and the idea of rights in the first place. As such, it's far more fundamental than the "fundamental" rights of which you're speaking.

If you guys want to discuss Mr. Kolker's personal morality, take it to PM's. I can't exactly split this thread into one titled "Bob Kolker's Morality". This is a board about Objectivism and ideas, not personalities. Don't try to convince Bob he's wrong, explain to other people *why* he is wrong.

You're addressing this at Bob, right? The guy who brought it up after all. If I've discussed personalities, then please point that out, but I believe that "personal morality" would fall under the category of ideas, not personalities. If Bob wants to use his own personal ideas as a defense of his principles, then why is that off limits. The discussion is not getting personal as I see it, in the sense of straying from his ideas as such.

Edited November 7, 2007 by KendallJ