Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should duels be legal?

Rate this topic


ttime

Recommended Posts

We do have the RIGHT to take our own lives. As such we also have the right to defer that action to someone else. In the case of assisted suicide it makes since... Where a duel is irrational. However we do also have the right to be Irrational as long as terms are met. I had a girlfriend once that wanted me to choke her and beat the fuck out of her during sex. Regardless how irrational. I was permitted to do so. I declined BTW.

The point is. Both men(or women) have ownership over their own lives. If they want to jump of a cliff together or shoot at one another it is their lives and their business. End of story, goodnight.

Edited by LandonWalsh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a right to choose how my life ends. I do not recognize anyone else's moral claim to the contrary, it's my life, not theirs. I'm not equivocating.

What do you mean by 'ownership' and how do you define it without the concept of property rights? Are you not using a political concept to justify an ethical principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why the numbers should necessarily change the principle, assuming all the participants have explicitly voluntarily contracted. However, gang dynamics being what they are, the reasons they fight, and the number of gang members frequently pressed into doing things "for the gang" that they might not otherwise wish to do, ensuring explicit consent becomes exceedingly more problematic.

And exactly what do you think motivates someone to a duel? They are challenged into doing something they would not do, because they are afraid of losing face because of being slapped in front of a crowd (gang), etc.

Additionally, finding legimate grounds for this conduct not to disturb the peace or endanger the public grows more difficult as numbers increase.

If you object, why do you think changing the number of participants changes the principle I'm going by?

Of course not. And if American soldiers volunteer and Russian soldiers volunteer, lets have an all-out nuclear war.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not be a contract. That is all. If it is a contract, then it must be enforceable. There can be no enforcement of an agreement to duel -- anyone can back out at any time.

Why not? Such a clause could easily be put into the contract.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have the RIGHT to take our own lives. As such we also have the right to defer that action to someone else. In the case of assisted suicide it makes since... Where a duel is irrational. However we do also have the right to be Irrational as long as terms are met. I had a girlfriend once that wanted me to choke her and beat the fuck out of her during sex. Regardless how irrational. I was permitted to do so. I declined BTW.

The point is. Both men(or women) have ownership over their own lives. If they want to jump of a cliff together or shoot at one another it is their lives and their business. End of story, goodnight.

What's her email address?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have the RIGHT to take our own lives. As such we also have the right to defer that action to someone else. In the case of assisted suicide it makes since... Where a duel is irrational. However we do also have the right to be Irrational as long as terms are met. I had a girlfriend once that wanted me to choke her and beat the fuck out of her during sex. Regardless how irrational. I was permitted to do so. I declined BTW.

The point is. Both men(or women) have ownership over their own lives. If they want to jump of a cliff together or shoot at one another it is their lives and their business. End of story, goodnight.

If I come to you house, shoot you, and tell the police: "he told me to do it," is that an acceptable defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by 'ownership' and how do you define it without the concept of property rights? Are you not using a political concept to justify an ethical principle?

I mentioned in my last post that I'm no longer participating in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. It is sufficient that there be an agreement to enter into a duel. Contracts are a subset of agreements. Since an agreement to duel cannot be enforced, it cannot be the subject of a contract.

I'm not sure what this distinction means, how do you know what is "enforceable" and what isn't?

Why does it seem that there are a substantial number of responses in your thread that you have not bothered to read yet?

what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And exactly what do you think motivates someone to a duel?

Whatever does.

They are challenged into doing something they would not do, because they are afraid of losing face because of being slapped in front of a crowd (gang), etc.

*Shrug*

If I sign a contract to please someone else it doesn't make the contract invalid. It was absolutely my choice, and should be treated as such.

Of course not. And if American soldiers volunteer and Russian soldiers volunteer, lets have an all-out nuclear war.

Don't even pretend that that's the same thing, it's dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Permitting dueling to be an excuse for a justified killing is an unprincipled contradiction of inalienable rights.

No more than allowing men to trade property via contract is.

Men can willingly relinquish their claim to anything that is theirs. Giving my house away to a homeless man would not be a contradiction of inalienable rights, simply the irrational use of those rights. That does not allow the government to keep me from doing so, nor does it allow me to walk in at a later date and act as though the house is mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is someone's desire to not show weakness or cowardice "duress"?

And since when are laws based on taunting?

This is easy. The agreement can be attacked on the basis of some illegitimate social pressure was present (perhaps one of the duelers is an authority figure such as a cop) or it can be framed as a result of a temporary incapacity such as used in the "crime of passion" defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more than allowing men to trade property via contract is.

Men can willingly relinquish their claim to anything that is theirs. Giving my house away to a homeless man would not be a contradiction of inalienable rights, simply the irrational use of those rights. That does not allow the government to keep me from doing so, nor does it allow me to walk in at a later date and act as though the house is mine.

That the RIGHT OF property is inalienable is not contradicted by property itself being alienable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the RIGHT OF property is inalienable is not contradicted by property itself being alienable.

So should it be illegal for an astronaut to undertake an extremely risky mission? Is it immoral?

Your argument implies that the fact that he's risking his own life is irrelevant, since he has no "right" to relinquish it.

"Rights" are based on the premise that men should each be allowed to act in accordance with their thoughts. Why? Because men live by reason (proper thought) and acting on it. To tell a person you have no proper custodial authority over that you won't allow them to do something is immoral unless you can establish that by doing whatever they're doing they're intruding upon the life of another individual.

Edited by Minarchist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should it be illegal for an astronaut to undertake an extremely risky mission? Is it immoral?

Your argument implies that the fact that he's risking his own life is irrelevant, since he has no "right" to relinquish it.

Rights apply to the interactions between people. If an astronaut dies that is not because someone intentionally killed him, but from some natural cause that is a hazard of space travel. Nature does not have intent. This analogy is does not fit at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights apply to the interactions between people. If an astronaut dies that is not because someone intentionally killed him, but from some natural cause that is a hazard of space travel.

Nature does not have intent. This analogy is does not fit at all.

Fair enough.

Please read the edited-in portion of my previous post.

Edited by Minarchist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this distinction means, how do you know what is "enforceable" and what isn't?
Well, I suppose it's because I've studied contract law to a certain extent, so that's how I know what the elements of a contract are. Definitionally, a contract must be something that a court can force either party to live up to. But a court cannot order a person to commit suicide -- the court cannot mandate performance of an unconscionable act as a remedy for violation of a contract. Thus any contract requiring parties to duel to the death would not be enforceable, thus not a contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose it's because I've studied contract law to a certain extent, so that's how I know what the elements of a contract are. Definitionally, a contract must be something that a court can force either party to live up to. But a court cannot order a person to commit suicide -- the court cannot mandate performance of an unconscionable act as a remedy for violation of a contract. Thus any contract requiring parties to duel to the death would not be enforceable, thus not a contract.

Usage of the term "contract" allows it to mean a voluntary agreement between two or more entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose it's because I've studied contract law to a certain extent, so that's how I know what the elements of a contract are. Definitionally, a contract must be something that a court can force either party to live up to.

Wait a second. What? I thought before you were talking about what you think the law ought to be. You actually believe this is a description of what the law is?

Ever hear of "efficient breach"? The concept of efficient breach wouldn't exist if courts could force specific performance of any contract (by definition).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usage of the term "contract" allows it to mean a voluntary agreement between two or more entities.
That's not what "contract" means, if you've been reading the relevant posts here. A contract is a special kind of agreement. Two people can agree to have a duel, but they cannot have a contract to require dueling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what "contract" means, if you've been reading the relevant posts here.

That is what it means. That's it's dictionary definition, that's it's common usage, and Ayn Rand used it as such (look under permission vs. rights in the Lexicon).

By your definition a contract is only valid if the government recognizes and enforces it. This is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever hear of "efficient breach"? The concept of efficient breach wouldn't exist if courts could force specific performance of any contract (by definition).
Yes, I've heard of efficient breach. You will notice that I did not say that courts always force specific performance. When parties can never, in principle, be forced to comply with the terms of a contract, then there cannot be a contract.
Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...