Consenting Adults

[LuisDantas]

Logically, one can't support the proposed scenario until and unless he also support the right to commit suicide.

Which I do. But this scenario is way too close to war for confort. War, of course, is by definition a moral abomination, while suicide is legitimate at least under some circunstances.

So I guess I would use the practical justifications for tolerating the existence of wars as a guideline. If I can be convinced that the impact of their deaths and/or serious injury on other people is somewhat tolerable and that they are both way too crippled for healthy alternatives to work, maybe then I could grudgingly accept that they have a right to make destructive fools of themselves.

 

[Darkness]

I am going to be playing Devil's Advocate here, just for the sake of furthering our experiment. I don't actually believe any of this. I think it is insane and a mental illness for a society to allow two consenting adults to fight to the death. So here goes:

I'm a little concerned about how we ascertain consent. I assume the payoff is big for the winner; is this a deal where our very most poor and desperate make one last desperate bid for success?

I don't doubt that the majority of people competing in this tournament will be the poor who are seeking to enhance their social position, or take care of themselves or their family. However, banning all fights to the death unfairly harms those who truly enjoy fights to the death, and find empowerment in the practice. It also unjustly destroys agency on the part of those poor who make an autonomous decision to control their own destiny and protect their family. You are essentially being prejudice against the poor, by limiting their agency.

While I understand the principal behind the question is personal freedom unless there is a good reason to restrict it, I still think it is legitimate to turn the question round and ask why should they be allowed to. Where is the benefit for anyone (and the resultant costs for anyone else). I can't think of any positive motivation behind such an idea.

It should be allowed precisely because it is a personal choice. Many people could be empowered by this practice. Just think about how empowered a competitor could be if he or she has two or three victories. Men and women who would otherwise have no power and autonomy have carved out for themselves a niche where they have freedom and control. How could this be wrong?

 

[ChristineES]

It would be like condoning murder and/or suicide.

 

[Erebus]

I voted yes. Plenty of people are already willing to risk their lives for fame, money, bloodlust etc doing all kinds of other things, from joining the military to mountain climbing. Why not throw a good old fashioned pitfight or gentleman's duel into the mix.

 

[Darkness]

I voted yes. Plenty of people are already willing to risk their lives for fame, money, bloodlust etc doing all kinds of other things, from joining the military to mountain climbing. Why not throw a good old fashioned pitfight or gentleman's duel into the mix.

On an interesting side note, gentleman's duels used to be considered a proper forum to settle disputes, not 200 years ago.

 

[linwood]

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?

I`m pretty sure it`s already allowed.

How could you stop it and how could you prosecute the winner when he/she was obviously defending themselves?

I voted not sure but the more I think about it the more I think I should have voted yes.

 

[Magic Man]

Also, even in a fair fight, a person might stop consenting when he realizes he's going to lose.

I think this is the key. It's one thing to consent to fighting until one person knocks the other out, like in boxing, but death is a different story.

 

[Darkness]

I`m pretty sure it`s already allowed.

How could you stop it and how could you prosecute the winner when he/she was obviously defending themselves?

I voted not sure but the more I think about it the more I think I should have voted yes.

If it was ever discovered that there was an arrangement, the survivor could be tried for premeditated murder, if I am not mistaken.

I think this is the key. It's one thing to consent to fighting until one person knocks the other out, like in boxing, but death is a different story.

Couldn't you also claim that people should then be able to pull out of any and all contracts if they change their minds?

 

[Magic Man]

Couldn't you also claim that people should then be able to pull out of any and all contracts if they change their minds?

You could, but only if you allowed people to fight to the death, and only if you allowed them to pull out of the fight midfight, if they changed their mind. I'm advocating not allowing it at all.

 

[Penumbra]

In pure theory, I suppose so. If an adult has no dependents, I suppose they should be able to.

But in practice, I don't think such a thing should be legal. I think people would be manipulated, coerced, etc. People that aren't in a healthy state of mind at the time can make a permanent decision. People with nothing have nothing to lose, and I don't think it's healthy to make options like that available.

 

[Erebus]

On an interesting side note, gentleman's duels used to be considered a proper forum to settle disputes, not 200 years ago.

Yep, while I've never really understood the "whoever survives is right" attitude, I wouldn't have any problem with two upper class toffs firing at each other

 

[Tol]

I voted yes. Strictly speaking, people already do.

 

[Darkness]

I voted yes. Strictly speaking, people already do.

I find it interesting that so far, those voting yes tend to be pagans or followers of the left-hand path. I am intrigued, but not terribly surprised. Pagan and left-hand path religions tend to be very individual-oriented.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find it interesting that so far, those voting yes tend to be pagans or followers of the left-hand path. I am intrigued, but not terribly surprised. Pagan and left-hand path religions tend to be very individual-oriented.

I'm surprised that so many voted YES....a most revolting view.

 

[bobhikes]

Because the death of a person affects more than that person alone, I would however vote yes if the winner fullfills the responsibilities of the loser.

 

[Mister Emu]

I vote yes... if I get exclusive media/distribution rights.

 

[kai]

On an interesting side note, gentleman's duels used to be considered a proper forum to settle disputes, not 200 years ago.

interesting ;

The goal of the honourable duel was often not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it.


but if a gentleman's honour were offended by a person of lower class, he would not duel him, but would beat him with a cane, riding crop, a whip or have his servants do so.

Duel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



i kind of hoped we had moved on

 

[Darkness]

I'm surprised that so many voted YES....a most revolting view.

I am not really all that surprised. America is a very liberal country in many respects. Even the Republican party is mainly made up of Conservative Liberals.

 

[kai]

I am not really all that surprised. America is a very liberal country in many respects. Even the Republican party is mainly made up of Conservative Liberals.

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

There is. Its called reality tv.