Consenting Adults

[Revoltingest]

I dont think everyone really thinks it through! Its not quite so simple as two brave men fighting to the death for honour like the knights of old lol.

You're correct! I didn't need to give much thought to my YES vote, since it's politically simple for me. The complicated
part would be its regulation & the new body of law surrounding it. I didn't want to go their.....make brain hurt!

 

[Midnight Pete]

No. Murder is unlawful and immoral. It would be senseless death. Why can't these two consenting adults find some other way of resolving their conflict?

 

[Starsoul]

No. Murder is unlawful and immoral. It would be senseless death. Why can't these two consenting adults find some other way of resolving their conflict?

Because they are getting paid to die. Says much about their sense and sensibility.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Because they are getting paid to die. Says much about their sense and sensibility.

Getting paid to die, are they? And how are they supposed to spend the money they earn by being killed?

This may not be the dumbest thng I've ever heard of, but's definintely up there.

 

[Darkness]

Political society seems to be divided into two camps. On the libertarian end is the belief that the government does not have the right to legislate morality to us, and that people should have full consent and control of their own actions regardless of how stupid those decisions may be. "It is my right to be an idiot and smoke cigarettes!" On the other end stand the communitarians. We (as I consider myself a communitarian) believe that the people do not always know what's best for them, and that restrictions on freedom and personal choice can be justified if it has positive end/outcome. For example, we should ban cigarettes because it will save millions of lives in the long-run. Personal choice (the ability to be an idiot) is limited for the utilitarian good. "Put that seatbelt on or I will write you a ticket!"

 

[ChristineES]

Because they are getting paid to die. Says much about their sense and sensibility.

How would someone spend their money if they were paid to die.

 

[Magic Man]

No. Murder is unlawful and immoral. It would be senseless death. Why can't these two consenting adults find some other way of resolving their conflict?

They're not trying to resolve a conflict. They're trying to fight each other for money. It's like boxing, except it's to the death. I'm curious. Do you find boxing unlawful and immoral?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Fighting to the death is part of our civilization.
Whilst we make it illegal for individuals to do it.
Collectively we gloryfy it... in war.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Duelling was legal for hundreds of years.
It was considered the ultimate judicial system.
I doubt many libertarians would wish to see it return. Most are far to selfish to abide by the rules.

It was done for Status
for justice
for honour
for love
and for money.

 

[The Bright Beast]

i vote no. It is a waste of future, and the deceased could later go on to do great things for the human race, which, at the moment, we REALLY need because we're on a slippery slope downwards to extinction, In my opinion.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I am interested in your responses to this question, since the issue popped into my mind while reading feminist theory on prostitution. Why shouldn't two consenting adults, if they understand the risks and the benefits (e.g. monetary) be able to fight each other to the death?

No. To do so would be to tip the balance of rights even further toward individuals and away from society, something we have done way too much of already. I believe that our mere existence delivers us a mandate to make the best of our lives and the lives of others. To engage in a duel with someone else is to destroy that mandate, not to mention a human life.

 

[linwood]

No. To do so would be to tip the balance of rights even further toward individuals and away from society, something we have done way too much of already. I believe that our mere existence delivers us a mandate to make the best of our lives and the lives of others. To engage in a duel with someone else is to destroy that mandate, not to mention a human life.

Thankfully you`re not in charge.

My existence is by no means subject to any imagined "mandate".
It is mine and mine alone, I will do whatever I wish with it.

On that note I change my "Not Sure" to a "Hell Yes".

We already allow it anyway, hell we promote it, we idolize those that engage in it and set them upon pedestals.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I am interested in your responses to this question, since the issue popped into my mind while reading feminist theory on prostitution. Why shouldn't two consenting adults, if they understand the risks and the benefits (e.g. monetary) be able to fight each other to the death?

Up until sometime in the latter part of the last century, there was a law in Kentucky where I live that allowed for 'mutual consent to a fray'. Essentially, it allowed people to conduct duels. Of course, if one ever took part in a duel, then they were restricted from holding public office. So it goes.

Kentuckians are so wacky. I love 'em. For the better part of two centuries the entire Commonwealth of Kentucky believed there was nothing wrong with two people voluntarily trying to kill each other, as long as they both consented before hand to the duel, just as long as the winner wasn't allowed to represent the public trust anytime in the future. I am assuming questions as to whether or not the loser could hold public office were pretty much moot.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Thankfully you`re not in charge.

My existence is by no means subject to any imagined "mandate".
It is mine and mine alone, I will do whatever I wish with it.

On that note I change my "Not Sure" to a "Hell Yes".

We already allow it anyway, hell we promote it, we idolize those that engage in it and set them upon pedestals.

But why? If life becomes so cheap that people can choose to throw it away for no legitimate reason, then what else is even worth defending?

 

[linwood]

But why? If life becomes so cheap that people can choose to throw it away for no legitimate reason, then what else is even worth defending?

Because the influence of my government and my culture ends at my skin.

This life is mine, I am the sole auditor of it`s value.
I determine what aspects of it increase or decrease it`s value.
I decide when it`s value is best utilized by ending it or extending it.

The whole concept is a slippery slope, think Terri Schiavo.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Because the influence of my government and my culture ends at my skin.

This life is mine, I am the sole auditor of it`s value.
I determine what aspects of it increase or decrease it`s value.
I decide when it`s value is best utilized by ending it or extending it.

To place 100% importance on the individual is just as dangerous as placing 100% importance on society as a whole. Again, moderating the two extremes is key. If we went with your reasoning, then there would be nothing bad about suicide.

The whole concept is a slippery slope, think Terri Schiavo.

That's a can of worms that I'd rather save for another thread.

 

[Smoke]

On the other hand, I can see the utility of this if we stage fights to the death among Congressmen and clergy.

 

[Revoltingest]

....to tip the balance of rights even further toward individuals and away from society, something we have done way too much of already.

You scare me.

 

[linwood]

To place 100% importance on the individual is just as dangerous as placing 100% importance on society as a whole. Again, moderating the two extremes is key. If we went with your reasoning, then there would be nothing bad about suicide.

Please state were I have advocated putting 100% importance on the individual.

I see suicide as a personal choice, I have no problem with it.

That's a can of worms that I'd rather save for another thread.

Of course you would as it would bring up points that directly contradict your stance.
According to your rationale Mrs.Schiavo should have been kept alive indefinitely regardless of her own beliefs.

Either that or you would have to fall into some type of generalized sliding scale of value on human life.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You scare me.

No offense but after some of your posts, I really don't think you have room to say that.

Please state were I have advocated putting 100% importance on the individual.

I see suicide as a personal choice, I have no problem with it.

Um. In practice, I don't think anyone holds such a belief, unless he or she truly puts 100% importance on the individual decisions.

Of course you would as it would bring up points that directly contradict your stance.
According to your rationale Mrs.Schiavo should have been kept alive indefinitely regardless of her own beliefs.

Either that or you would have to fall into some type of generalized sliding scale of value on human life.

I'm not biting this red herring, linwood. The Terry Schiavo case isn't even in the same league as the OP.

Furthermore, I don't understand why the burden seems to be directed toward me to defend my case. It's as if saying that murder is acceptable is the default position (as do suicide and dueling here), and the burden is on those who claim it to be wrong. That is simply unrealistic. The burden in this debate lies with those who claim that dueling, and all of its social ramifications, and all the lives that it would negatively impact, is okay. All the rest of us have to do is interject reasonable doubt, which is simply what I'm doing.

Now, I'm going at it in a roundabout way, claiming that neither the individual or society should receive 100% focus. But really, one could simply claim that by definition of consent, a rational and sane adult cannot consent to a duel, because to do so would effectively void that person's sanity. So see? Even if it's all about the individual, there's still a wall to cross that hasn't been crossed yet.