Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
airborne

Death sports

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Let's use an analogous example: Can you voluntarily become a slave? No, because slavery contradicts the idea of voluntary.
Right, and while you can voluntarily become a "virtual slave", you can still opt out of slavery. Analogously, you can agree to fight to the death (his death, presumably), but you cannot be forced to continue fighting until you are dead -- you have the right to leave the arena if you wish. A proper government would allow men such a morally dubious but voluntary activity as long as it remains voluntary. Fighting back does not, in that context, indicate that you have withdrawn consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a right for instance to commit suicide, but I don't have a right to have someone else kill me?

That's like saying "I have the right to live, but I don't have the right to have someone else provide for my life?" No. You cannot have the right to have someone else kill you because you can't waive your primary rights. You can't *give* someone the right to commit murder. Oh, you can *say* that you did, but it is neither legal nor ethical.

This is why assisted suicide has to be *assisted*. The doctor can't just shoot you in the head, there has to be a procedure whereby you kill yourself with the doctor *helping*.

I find David's comment about the fact that the person being beaten to death could have left the ring to be horribly naive. Yeah, he *could* have left the ring before the physical damage became so great that he couldn't move. Have you ever *seen* someone get beaten to death?

There is no room in any kind of civilization for people killing each other under any kind of terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Merged with a previous thread. -sN ***

This is something that has been popping around my brain for a little while, and I'd like to get your take on it.

Violence, as I understand it, is not something that is evil in and of itself. It is only when it is used as a agent of force to violate the rights of other human beings that it becomes evil. A couple boxers sparring with each other could hardly be called evil for doing something they both enjoy and agree to.

But what about lethality? Should two people be allowed to sign a contract, validating their intent, state of mind, and the rules of the duel? I'm not asking if it is moral (deciding to simply kill each other, however you look at it, doesn't seem very rational to me, except maybe in extreme contexts that I can't think of right now), but whether it should be allowed under law, since apparently no coercion is involved, and both parties are consenting.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the movie Fearless, they made the contestants sign "Death Wavers" in order to fight, because it is so dangerous. While death was not the intended outcome, it was certainly a possibility. I am not sure, but I think they actually did make them sign Death Wavers in order to fight in China up until relatively recently.

Also, in the show Metalocalypse, the fans must sign Death Wavers before attempting to go to a Dethklok concert, for fear that they might have boiling oil poured upon them or have their fingers cut off and thrown up on stage, only to have the Bass Guitarist, William Murderface, smoke them like cigarettes.

Now, this should be politically legal if all parties have signed a contract, similar to a Death Waver, although the question comes to the moral and ethical level. In other words, why the HELL would you want to put yourself in that kind of risk unnecessarily? I can understand the fighting more than the dueling, being that the fighting, death is not an intended outcome. Would I do it? Probably not. :dough:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the movie Fearless, they made the contestants sign "Death Wavers" in order to fight, because it is so dangerous. While death was not the intended outcome, it was certainly a possibility. I am not sure, but I think they actually did make them sign Death Wavers in order to fight in China up until relatively recently.

Also, in the show Metalocalypse, the fans must sign Death Wavers before attempting to go to a Dethklok concert, for fear that they might have boiling oil poured upon them or have their fingers cut off and thrown up on stage, only to have the Bass Guitarist, William Murderface, smoke them like cigarettes.

Now, this should be politically legal if all parties have signed a contract, similar to a Death Waver, although the question comes to the moral and ethical level. In other words, why the HELL would you want to put yourself in that kind of risk unnecessarily? I can understand the fighting more than the dueling, being that the fighting, death is not an intended outcome. Would I do it? Probably not. :P

I believe the old Ultimate Fighter used to do this also. When I was in highschool (over 10 years ago), a few of my friends used to beg their parents to buy the pay-per view events. You would see some of these guys 5' 120lbs taking on 500lb+ sumo wrestlers. They did it for money, but geez, there has to be an easier way to make a living ;):lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...