LandonWalsh Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) 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 May 31, 2010 by LandonWalsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) 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 May 31, 2010 by A is A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) 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 May 31, 2010 by A is A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 ----------- Thus the choice is "die if the alternative is the opponent lives". I can only hope I never do anything to make your life intolerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 Why not? Such a clause could easily be put into the contract.You need to study what a contract is. There are limits to what a contract can be. Study the law, and get back to me if you don't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaPartier Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) 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 May 31, 2010 by Minarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 (edited) 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 May 31, 2010 by Minarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 If I come to you house, shoot you, and tell the police: "he told me to do it," is that an acceptable defense? If you are going to post an argument, it should at least be a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smyjpmu Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 If you are going to post an argument, it should at least be a good one. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.