Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should duels be legal?

Rate this topic


ttime

Recommended Posts

Shaking hands is initiating force, as is boxing or playing football. Sex is force.

Yes, but they are not forms of compulsion, and I think you are well aware that the context of "initiate force" as we use it here is to initiate force in order to compel another to act.

It would follow from this that you can't play football. The key is that, in fact, force without consent is what is forbidden. In addition, AN AGREEMENT TO DUEL IS NOT A CONTRACT. IT IS AN AGREEMENT. A CONTRACT IS A SPECIAL SUBSET OF AGREEMENT.

Screaming is not necessary.

A contract is a special subset of an agreement based on trade, I agree.

"A contract is an agreement between two or more persons (individuals, businesses, organizations or government agencies) to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular thing in exchange for something of value. " - http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice...t_agreement.htm

Here, the two duelists are agreeing to trade to each other the right to be killed for the right to kill the other. They are quite literally trading away their right to live (a value) for the right to take anothers life (a value). That meets the qualifications of being a contract.

The players of the football game, or the boxers, they agree to compete in a very physical manner, that is true, but they do not do so in order to compel their opponent, but to determine a winner.

However, the purpose of challenging a person to a duel is to resolve a conflict - and it consists of issuing a threat of force if one's demand for satisfaction is not met. It was done between equals - persons of higher stature would not duel peasants - they would simply *beat* them (force again).

The person of equal stature, however, was threatened - the challenge to the duel amounting to the choice between risking their life or sacrificing honor. In a culture where the loss of honor was serious loss of value, this definitely constituted a material threat, much like the damage caused by slander and libel today.

The very ACT of challenging a person to a duel is, therefore, an initiation of force. It is nothing more than a dressed up form of blackmail - your honor or your life instead of your money or your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are well aware that the context of "initiate force" as we use it here is to initiate force in order to compel another to act.

Force is not an issue if there is consensual agreement to use force against one another or upon oneself by another. The whole reason force is a problem is because it can have negative effects upon the other individual, violating their rights, as they have not consented in the matter, it is *forcefully* making what would likely be an otherwise rational actor choose things that may be against their personal interest. I don't remember reading anything in Rand's works that suggested that people don't have the right to be stupid about their position in society or the exercising of their rights. In fact, I believe it was implied on many occasions that they can be as stupid (to the point of ending themselves incidentally or permanently even) as they wish as long as it was not effecting others who did not choose (i.e. showed they were willing to face the outcome of) having the same demise. In what way is that being done with duels? Yes agreeing to a duel is stupid, but it is a voluntary agreement, both are aware force (I am using the commonly held definition here) will be used against the other, and both are aware of the potential outcome. I don't see the problem here. Laws are against violating rights, not stupidity. The right cannot be violated if its placed on a table and stated by each party "let us have at it! These are the conditions of the duel as written per contract!" and they shake hands and go at it. It to seems like you are trying to implement a certain definition of force, and proponents of illegality are using iffy at best contextual arguments, to try and justify their position here. I have not been very convinced by these posts by the opposition thus far.

Also, forgive me since I have not the time nor the inclination to read every post in here, but is this thread decidedly on lethal duels? I would imagine most people would not enter into lethal duels, most duels back in the day were not lethal ones, but to the first blood. In America, often the point was to scar the other mans cheek with swords. In some cultural areas it was even considered a part of attaining honor to gain this permanent scar on one's cheek, as it shows that when they entered a duel to settle a disagreement they fought valiantly rather than ran away.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screaming is not necessary.
It is when the same thing has been said over and over and people still make the same error, as you did.
The very ACT of challenging a person to a duel is, therefore, an initiation of force.
Utterly false. If someone challenges you to a duel, you may decline. Therefore there is no compulsion, and no force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is when the same thing has been said over and over and people still make the same error, as you did.

I've not caught up on all the posts so far in this thread, but one question immediately jumps out at me with regards to the topic at hand.

So you, knowing I'd said I had not yet had time to fully catch up on the thread, decided to respond to my off the cuff question as if I were fully versed in the full discussion?

Do you also scream at toddlers when they don't initially understand why it's important to go potty IN the toilet?

Utterly false. If someone challenges you to a duel, you may decline. Therefore there is no compulsion, and no force.

That is an arbitrary refutation of the conclusion with out paying any regard to the underlying premises. I have explained how the concept of honor at the time (irrational as it may have been) played a part in the pressure put upon someone when challenged to a duel. If you wish to drop that context, we cannot discuss this further.

Nor have you addressed my assertion that the challenge and acceptance to a duel DOES form a contract (a trade of value for value).

@CapitalistSwine as well now

Even Rand made the statement that a contract to suicide cannot be enforced. When Dagny spoke to (... who owned the Phoenix Durango... anyway you should recall the context) - he had basically agreed voluntarily to immolate himself. Dagny urged the owner of the railroad to refuse to capitulate. He felt it was a point of honor that he must in fact commit business suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you, knowing I'd said I had not yet had time to fully catch up on the thread, decided to respond to my off the cuff question as if I were fully versed in the full discussion?
No, I decided to be explicit about how irresponsible it was for you to make that ignorant statement and then actually hold your ignorance out as a virtue. I am now deciding to emphasize that you are holding ignorance out as a virtue rather than a vice for which you should have apologized.
Do you also scream at toddlers when they don't initially understand why it's important to go potty IN the toilet?
At least you understand the nature of your post.
That is an arbitrary refutation of the conclusion with out paying any regard to the underlying premises.
You invented that "underlying premise". But since you haven't bothered to read any of the posts in the thread, including the original one, I thought I would ignore your fabrication as another instance of the toddler not knowing how to properly go to the potty.
Nor have you addressed my assertion that the challenge and acceptance to a duel DOES form a contract (a trade of value for value).
Look, toddler, if you are not going to read the posts in the thread, we can't help you. Your false and irrelevant assertion has been addressed quite adequately in this thread. Try to hit the target, next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I decided to be explicit about how irresponsible it was for you to make that ignorant statement and then actually hold your ignorance out as a virtue. I am now deciding to emphasize that you are holding ignorance out as a virtue rather than a vice for which you should have apologized.

Oh, no, David. Now you're seriously rationalizing.

See - I subsequently did make time to go back and read the thread, BEFORE I responded to your tantrum.

As I said in the first post, "this is just an off the cuff question". I posed the question with the appropriate context of my grounding in the thread - and you ignored that context and responded with an overly hostile, aggressive tone. I refuse to apologize for saying the functional equivalent of "Look I know I haven't studied calculus here yet, but how come fractals don't collapse on themselves?" Your response was arrogant and inappropriate, and you want me to apologize - as if your choice of responses were my fault. Funny.

At least you understand the nature of your post.

If anyone's full of shit right now I'd have to say its you.

You invented that "underlying premise".

No - I've studied medieval, Victorian, Elizabethan and Edwardian cultures. I'm not saying that their concept of honor was a rational one - but in that day and age, honor was considered a value worth more than gold, and refusing a challenge to a duel bore substantial cost.

http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-k...honor-the-duel/

But since you haven't bothered to read any of the posts in the thread, including the original one,

Assumption.

I thought I would ignore your fabrication as another instance of the toddler not knowing how to properly go to the potty.Look, toddler, if you are not going to read the posts in the thread, we can't help you. Your false and irrelevant assertion has been addressed quite adequately in this thread. Try to hit the target, next time.

And now you're inventing things. The concept of "honor" and its relative value in the duelists society was not raised ONCE in this thread prior to my mentioning it.

I certainly may be guilty of errors of knowledge in this thread, but your manner of addressing those errors, if they are errors, is not at all reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly may be guilty of errors of knowledge in this thread, but your manner of addressing those errors, if they are errors, is not at all reasonable.
Your not just guilty of errors of ignorance, you're guilty of evasion.

For example:

"The concept of 'honor' and its relative value in the duelists society was not raised ONCE in this thread prior to my mentioning it."

Quite true. In fact, that comment and all of the claims that follow from it are totally off topic w.r.t. the OP. You and you alone are responsible for that red herring. The question being posed is not about some archaic historical society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AN AGREEMENT TO DUEL IS NOT A CONTRACT. IT IS AN AGREEMENT. A CONTRACT IS A SPECIAL SUBSET OF AGREEMENT.

[screaming is necessary] when the same thing has been said over and over and people still make the same error, as you did.

But you have promised to explain why an agreement to duel is not a contract, and you have so far failed to do so.

Is an agreement to fight a boxing match a contract? If so, why not an agreement to duel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, the two duelists are agreeing to trade to each other the right to be killed for the right to kill the other.

I wouldn't characterize it that way. You can't trade rights, can you? You can trade covenants not to sue, but that only covers civil law, not criminal law.

I think David has a great point that a contract is not what would make a duel legal, even if I do disagree with him that a contract to duel would, were duels legal, be possible.

Think of a contract to engage in a boxing match. The contract doesn't say "I give you permission to punch me in exchange for you giving me permission to punch you". The details of the contract state that so-and-so will show up at whatever location, engage in a boxing match under certain rules, etc. There are surely waivers of liability, but that is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. The contract is not what creates the exemption under criminal law for battery. The permission is what creates it. However, there generally is a contract, and I see no reason there couldn't be such a contract for a duel, if duels were legal. If duels are legal and you contract to duel, then you don't show up to the duel, the other party to the contract can sue for damages, not kill you. The agreement is "I'll show up at X location and engage in a duel", not "I'll let you try to kill me".

If duels were legal, in all probability there would be a market for television events covering the duel. Surely there would be contracts involved, if not between the two participants then between the participants and the producer of the event.

Edited by smyjpmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For purposes that should become quickly clear, I'm going to respond to this in reverse order:

For example:

"The concept of 'honor' and its relative value in the duelists society was not raised ONCE in this thread prior to my mentioning it."

Quite true. In fact, that comment and all of the claims that follow from it are totally off topic w.r.t. the OP. You and you alone are responsible for that red herring. The question being posed is not about some archaic historical society.

Actually, that's a very good point - the duelist society is one that no longer exists, so I agree that for that reason, the honor concept does not apply to this specific discussion. I appreciate the correction.

Your not just guilty of errors of ignorance, you're guilty of evasion.

Your arrogance is astounding. You've jumped to yet another conclusion here, with NO basis in evidence. I'm ABSOLUTELY willing to accept correction where needed. For example, my acknowledgment that yes, honor has no real bearing on this discussion. Based on that, I withdraw that premise.

And I do feel compelled to ask - if *I*'m the one guilty of evasion, why are YOU ignoring everything else I've said about your previous childish outbursts and responding only to the statements you can use to make false accusations, while I'm carefully considering and responding to every point?

I repeat - your initial outburst towards me was completely unjustified. An apology is owed here, not to you, buy by you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize it that way. You can't trade rights, can you? You can trade covenants not to sue, but that only covers civil law, not criminal law.

Can one trade right's is a good question - if not, why not? If one can trade property for property under property rights, it's true that one never gives away the right to property, but only the ownership of a specific piece of property.

Ok - so I'll accept that one cannot trade away one's rights.

But - if one can not trade away one's right to life, how can one give permission to someone else to take one's life? That is giving the other person a right to your life, is it not?

Think of a contract to engage in a boxing match. The contract doesn't say "I give you permission to punch me in exchange for you giving me permission to punch you". The details of the contract state that so-and-so will show up at whatever location, engage in a boxing match under certain rules, etc. There are surely waivers of liability, but that is a matter of civil law, not criminal law. The contract is not what creates the exemption under criminal law for battery. The permission is what creates it. However, there generally is a contract, and I see no reason there couldn't be such a contract for a duel, if duels were legal. If duels are legal and you contract to duel, then you don't show up to the duel, the other party to the contract can sue for damages, not kill you. The agreement is "I'll show up at X location and engage in a duel", not "I'll let you try to kill me".

The last bit is semantics - the agreement to engage in a duel IS an agreement to try to kill each other just as the agreement to box is an agreement to engage in a punching match. Both have formalized rules of conduct, of course, but they amount to the same thing.

But I'm still not persuaded that duels and boxing matches are equivocal. The end goal of the duel is the death of another person. The end goal of the boxing match is to determine the stronger in the contest of strength/endurance/etc and death is NOT the goal. Accepting the increase in risk to the possibility of injury where the goal is NOT death is vastly different from agreeing to "two men enter, one man leave". Agreeing to a boxing match is like agreeing to be a coal miner with regard to increased risk. Agreeing to a duel is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you have promised to explain why an agreement to duel is not a contract, and you have so far failed to do so.
As I've explained before, the subject matter of such a putative contract in principle cannot be enforced. No objectively-measurable damages can result from a breach of said non-contract, so there is no possibility of making the other party whole. In addition, there is no "consideration", precluding a contractual analysis.
Is an agreement to fight a boxing match a contract?
An agreement between the boxers? Not in the real world. You could imagine a fantasy scenario where the boxers are also the promoters of a match for profit, in which case there are objective damages (lost revenues, lost advertising and similar expenses). A contract between a boxer and a promoter would be valid on that basis. But not a contract between the opponents, where each is obligated to fight the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No objectively-measurable damages can result from a breach of said non-contract, so there is no possibility of making the other party whole. In addition, there is no "consideration", precluding a contractual analysis.

Doesn't that depend on the details of the contract? How can you say there is no consideration without even seeing the contract itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can one trade right's is a good question - if not, why not?

Because rights are principles. They are moral concepts. Trading rights would be like trading math equations.

If one can trade property for property under property rights, it's true that one never gives away the right to property, but only the ownership of a specific piece of property.

Ok - so I'll accept that one cannot trade away one's rights.

Great.

But - if one can not trade away one's right to life, how can one give permission to someone else to take one's life?

A right is a freedom of action. "It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." If you want to die, and someone helps you, there is no compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men.

Whether or not that applies to a duel, I don't know. The difference between a duel and assisted suicide is obvious. In assisted suicide, the person wants to die. In a duel, they don't.

That is giving the other person a right to your life, is it not?

Giving permission to take one's life is not equivalent to giving the other person a right to your life, no. Giving the other person a right to your life would be closer to slavery.

But I'm still not persuaded that duels and boxing matches are equivocal.

You mean equivalent? I'm not convinced either.

The end goal of the duel is the death of another person.

Depends on the duel. A duel can also be "one shot each". It need not be to the death. Should a duel not to the death be treated like a boxing match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end goal of the duel is the death of another person.

Since no one has answered my previous question, until that is clarified I am going to say this is false relative to the specific discussion here. A duel does not automatically mean death, most duels in history were not to the death but first blood, such as scarring one's cheek. From reading the latest posts it seems that it may be plausible that duels to the *death* are not appropriate in regards to legality or morality, but perhaps when they are in a non-lethal form?

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that depend on the details of the contract? How can you say there is no consideration without even seeing the contract itself?
Show me the contract. It's in the nature of dueling. A contract to provide entertainment is not a contract to duel; and remember that we're talking about dueling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since no one has answered my previous question, until that is clarified I am going to say this is false relative to the specific discussion here.
If we stick closely to the original question -- "To be clear, I am only referring to lethal duels (i.e. duels that end in the death of one person)" -- then contextually speaking, it would be true that the end goal of a duel is death of the opponent. However I don't think it's at all important whether that is the goal. There isn't a categorially separate morality and legality for force leading to death versus force leading to injury.
From reading the latest posts it seems that it may be plausible that duels to the *death* are not appropriate in regards to legality or morality, but perhaps when they are in a non-lethal form?
Legally speaking, there is no impediment to dueling to the death, as long as it's voluntary and either party can halt the process at any time (up to the point when it's actually not stoppable). But morally, I don't see that it is ever appropriate -- as long as the goal is to inflict an injury on the opponent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me the contract. It's in the nature of dueling. A contract to provide entertainment is not a contract to duel; and remember that we're talking about dueling.

"I, S, agree to meet at OK Corral at high noon on October 26, 2010, for the purpose of engaging in a duel. In consideration for this promise, you, DO, also agree to meet at OK Corral at high noon on October 26, 2010, for the same purpose. The duel shall be conducted according to Roberts Rules of Dueling Volume 17. Both parties promise not to back out of said duel until at least one shot has been fired.

Both parties have gone to great lengths to invite family, friends, and coworkers to attend this momentous event, all of whom will be most disappointed if the event does not occur. As such, parties agree that damages for breach are difficult or impossible to determine. Therefore parties agree to liquidated damages, which they acknowledge and agree are reasonable estimates of actual damages, as set forth as follows: Should a party fail to show up for the duel, and not reschedule within 5 business days, breaching party shall pay a lump sum of $1000 to other party as liquidated damages."

If you don't agree, this is in the form of a contract (albeit a very poorly and hastily written one), which would be valid were dueling legal (and Roberts Rules of Dueling Volume 17 not something I just made up), and that it is in the nature of a "contract to duel", then I resign. It's really not that important to me, because after hearing this latest explanation I think we're in substantial agreement on what is/is not a contract (though perhaps not on what is/is not a "contract to duel").

Edited by smyjpmu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we stick closely to the original question -- "To be clear, I am only referring to lethal duels (i.e. duels that end in the death of one person)" -- then contextually speaking, it would be true that the end goal of a duel is death of the opponent. However I don't think it's at all important whether that is the goal. There isn't a categorially separate morality and legality for force leading to death versus force leading to injury.Legally speaking, there is no impediment to dueling to the death, as long as it's voluntary and either party can halt the process at any time (up to the point when it's actually not stoppable). But morally, I don't see that it is ever appropriate -- as long as the goal is to inflict an injury on the opponent.

What if one party goes unconscious and therefore cannot halt the process? Would a finishing kill shot be murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore parties agree to liquidated damages, which they acknowledge and agree are reasonable estimates of actual damages, as set forth as follows: Should a party fail to show up for the duel, and not reschedule within 5 business days, breaching party shall pay a lump sum of $1000 to other party as liquidated damages."
In which case, the party wishing to bail simply has to show up and then leave: the penalty is not for failing to duel, it is for non-appearance. Besides, this is clearly just a punishment against the party who bails: it does not compensate a party against actual damages, so this piece of paper simply won't fly.

Your resignation is accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, this is clearly just a punishment against the party who bails: it does not compensate a party against actual damages, so this piece of paper simply won't fly.

Your resignation is accepted.

Okay, I know my resignation has been accepted, so this is just out of curiosity. If a clown doesn't show up for my kid's birthday party, are there any actual damages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, clearly there must be continuous evidence of willing participation throughout.

That's not really a duel to the death, then.

And it also raises the question of why such a rule can morally be in place. Assisted suicide can continue even after the person being killed goes unconscious, can't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I know my resignation has been accepted, so this is just out of curiosity. If a clown doesn't show up for my kid's birthday party, are there any actual damages?

I guess I will enter the discussion, since I at least agree with David's point that there can be no contract to duel.

If a clown does not show up to a birthday party at which he has been hired to entertain, then there are damages, because an agreement was made to trade values (presumably, the entertainment for a fee). If the fee has already been paid, the clown certainly must compensate his customer by at least this much. Not knowing any specifics of contract law, I assume the customer could also obtain additional compensation from the clown, because the clown's absence denied him the chance to hire alternative entertainment.

In the case of a duel, there are no values being traded. Hence, one party not dueling does not harm the other party in any objectively definable way (one could even argue that the opposite is true). Now, if one party had paid the other a fee to participate in the duel, the fee would have to be returned.

David: please correct me if this is inconsistent with what you have been arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case, the party wishing to bail simply has to show up and then leave: the penalty is not for failing to duel, it is for non-appearance. Besides, this is clearly just a punishment against the party who bails: it does not compensate a party against actual damages, so this piece of paper simply won't fly.

Your resignation is accepted.

Well, actually, what he does is state that "given a certain action, I transfer property title to 1000 US dollars to you", the action being not showing up. Therefore, when he doesn't show up, the other guy now has a right to $1000, as per the contract. Damages is irrelevant here, it is an agreement to transfer a property title under a given circumstance (which is a legitimate contract). Indeed, such penalties for not fulfilling the terms of the contract were standard in the middle ages and early Renaissance period for contracts. Breach of contract didn't really exist, as if you didn't do what you agreed to, the contract said what you had to do, and so courts could simply order you to pay the money you now owe the claimant. No need to assess damages (as consequences for not following through were already fixed in the contract itself). It wasn't until courts abandoned the idea that you must fulfill your contracts or be held fully responsible that "damages" and the like came in, with all the ludicrous things resulting from that (like millions in "emotional damages" and whatnot).

In any case, it is a valid part of a contract, as it is a transfer of property title under the condition of a certain event (no different, except for which event it is predicated on, than a will). The fact that it doesn't "compensate a party against actual damages" is irrelevant, it is part of a contract, not "payment for damages". The contract mentions damages that cannot be determined as a reason for it, but the reason is irrelevant to the actual contract itself. Indeed, the contract would be made more clear by removing the reason and simply stating that "If you don't show, the no-show hereby transfers title to 1000 US dollars to the opponent." That makes it clear and simple.

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...