Possibly Deadly Contests

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

The topic of sports and contests has come up. Allow me to extend the question a bit.

In the ancient Greek Olympics one of the major sports was the pankration, a form of boxing and wresling in which the contestant would punch and kick each other until one or the other fell unconscious, died or conceded defeat. The object of the contest was to seriously injure or kill one's opponent. Modern day boxing is done with the same spirit. The idea is for one opponent to beat the other so badly that he cannot continue to fight. Of course there is the matter of judging the skill, but most boxers are not having a duel with foils so to speak. They are out to beat the opponent bloody or unconscious. Boxing has on more than one occasion fatal results. In addition the audience pays good money to see one or the other boxer beaten to a pulp. ♠

The Law -permits- such contests provided that the opponents are reasonably well matched for strength and weight. Furthermore the contest is limited to just the opponents. Third parties are not within range of injury (unless one counts the referee). In any case the only parties involved are the fighters and referees. Other parties are kept at a safe distance.

Now I come to the point. If the Law permits boxing matches which are potentially deadly, why should the law absolutely prohibit dueling wherein the outcome is (most likely) death or serious injury. The rules of dueling are such that only the contestants are at risk. Third parties are kept out of range or at a safe distance from the contestants. There is virtually no chance for a third party to be injured. In addition, participation in this sort of deadly contest is -purely voluntary-. No one is compelled to duel to the death (unless you count the impulse to defend honor as compulsion).

So I now ask, why does the Law prohibit dueling absolutely. The contestants own their lives, and no one is initiating deadly force on the other unbidden or unwelcome. It is possible for the duel to end with neither party dead. In addition, the rules of the duel restrict the weapons. The parties are required to use the same kind of weapon so only the skill and courage of the contestant is the determining factor, not who has the largest caliber weapon or longest sword.

In American history there was a very famous duel, between Hamilton and Burr. It took place in New Jersey in a morning in 1804 at a place where only the contestants were at risk. That is only 204 years ago. Furthermore the participants were both educated and civilized men so it was no brawl between primitives. So why does the Law prohibit consentual duels? Dueling with swords, is also athletic. In the modern Olympics and in college meets there is dueling with rapiers or foils which are blunted to prevent serious injury. If the opponents want to go to the point of voluntary bloodshed why should the Law prohibit it? No one is being deprived of any rights.

ruveyn

[Arnold 0]

What is the intention? To settle a dispute? The 'law' is more civilized for that problem. For sport then? Well dueling is allowed with swords - if the intention is sport and not incapacitation. Even in boxing, the referee will stop the fight if serious injury becomes evident.

Consider also the imbalance in abilities if one wants to settle an insult. The strong would get away with murder by instigating duels with an opponent they know to be weaker.

To summarize; the law is better at settling disagreements, and sport is by definition a contest of skills rather than serious injury. Yes, there is injury in sport, but that should not be the intention.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

To summarize; the law is better at settling disagreements, and sport is by definition a contest of skills rather than serious injury. Yes, there is injury in sport, but that should not be the intention.

I think the point Ruveyn was making was that dueling does not violate anyone's rights and therefore there should be no legal ban on it. For that purpose, it does not matter what the intention of the contestants is.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

So I now ask, why does the Law prohibit dueling absolutely.

For the same reason it prohibits many other rightful activities: pure power-lust.

[Paul's Here 0]

To summarize; the law is better at settling disagreements, and sport is by definition a contest of skills rather than serious injury. Yes, there is injury in sport, but that should not be the intention.

I think the point Ruveyn was making was that dueling does not violate anyone's rights and therefore there should be no legal ban on it. For that purpose, it does not matter what the intention of the contestants is.

If your intention is to kill someone, then it is murder regardless of the consent of the victim. (Please let's not get into assisted suicide here.) If both "contestants" know that the intent is to kill, then the imposition of rules is arbitrary. If I am in a sword fight for my life, I'd rather just pull a gun from my pocket and shoot my opponent.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

If your intention is to kill someone, then it is murder regardless of the consent of the victim. (Please let's not get into assisted suicide here.) If both "contestants" know that the intent is to kill, then the imposition of rules is arbitrary. If I am in a sword fight for my life, I'd rather just pull a gun from my pocket and shoot my opponent.

No. It is homicide, not murder. Murder is wrongful homicide. What makes wrongful homicide wrongful? Taking the life of another against his will and for insufficient reason. Dueling for honor provides sufficient reason. Also dueling for a cash prize is sufficient reason. Killing in self defense is sufficient reason. Killing as part of a justified military operation is sufficient reason. Just snuffing out another in the commission of another crime or for kicks -- now that is wrongful.

Which brings up the question of collateral damage. I will take that question to the ethics discussion section when I get around to it.

ruveyn

[Capitalism Forever 0]

If your intention is to kill someone, then it is murder regardless of the consent of the victim.

"If your intention is to take someone's property, then it is theft regardless of the consent of the victim. If you walk into the grocery store with the intention of taking the owner's oranges, you are committing a crime; the fact that you also intend to pay the price asked by the victim is irrelevant."

Of COURSE consent matters! Force is when you do something to someone without his consent. If he consents, that means he is happy with your action, so why exactly is he a victim then?

[Stussy88 0]

What is the intention? To settle a dispute? The 'law' is more civilized for that problem. For sport then? Well dueling is allowed with swords - if the intention is sport and not incapacitation. Even in boxing, the referee will stop the fight if serious injury becomes evident.

Consider also the imbalance in abilities if one wants to settle an insult. The strong would get away with murder by instigating duels with an opponent they know to be weaker.

To summarize; the law is better at settling disagreements, and sport is by definition a contest of skills rather than serious injury. Yes, there is injury in sport, but that should not be the intention.

I have to disagree. Both parties would need to agree to a duel, and either one could decline and still have recourse to the law. Indeed, I think it could sometime be a better method of settling disputes if both parties agreed than protracted litigation.

[bborg 0]

I have to disagree. Both parties would need to agree to a duel, and either one could decline and still have recourse to the law. Indeed, I think it could sometime be a better method of settling disputes if both parties agreed than protracted litigation.

Using force to settle a dispute is simply compelling the other party to obey you against his own judgment. It means abandoning reason and acting like a savage.

From "The Nature of Government", VoS:

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules

I don't see why a government should allow such a practice under its jurisdiction. Law is supposed to replace the barbarism of duels. The government properly holds a monopoly on the use of physical force; people simply should not have the legal option to resolve disputes with violence.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Indeed, I think it could sometime be a better method of settling disputes if both parties agreed than protracted litigation.

You realize that participating in a duel may cause your death, don't you? Litigation can't be that bad!

I think there is hardly ever a rational reason to agree to a duel, but the question is about legality, not rationality, and as we know there are lots of actions that are completely irrational and evil but should still be legal in a free society.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Using force to settle a dispute is simply compelling the other party to obey you against his own judgment.

Again, what force? If both parties agree of their own will and no third parties are involved, there is no force.

It means abandoning reason and acting like a savage.

I agree--but the purpose of the law is not to make people act rationally. The law IS force, and if you attempt to use it to force people to think the way you do, then you yourself are abandoning reason in favor of force.

[Cometmaker 0]

I think there is hardly ever a rational reason to agree to a duel, but the question is about legality, not rationality, and as we know there are lots of actions that are completely irrational and evil but should still be legal in a free society.

In which American jurisdiction is consentual fighting not legal, and not a valid self-defence argument?

[bborg 0]

Again, what force? If both parties agree of their own will and no third parties are involved, there is no force.

How did the dead man die?

I agree--but the purpose of the law is not to make people act rationally. The law IS force, and if you attempt to use it to force people to think the way you do, then you yourself are abandoning reason in favor of force.

No, the purpose of the law is to force people to settle their disagreements peacefully. They may not do so rationally, but they can do so without violence.

[Paul's Here 0]

If your intention is to kill someone, then it is murder regardless of the consent of the victim.

"If your intention is to take someone's property, then it is theft regardless of the consent of the victim. If you walk into the grocery store with the intention of taking the owner's oranges, you are committing a crime; the fact that you also intend to pay the price asked by the victim is irrelevant."

Of COURSE consent matters! Force is when you do something to someone without his consent. If he consents, that means he is happy with your action, so why exactly is he a victim then?

That's a faulty analogy. The correct one would be: "If your intention is to steal someone's property, then it is theft regardless of the consent of the victim. If you walk into the grocery store with the intention of stealing the owner's oranges, you are committing a crime [if you actually steal the orange]; the fact that you also intend to let him steal from you is irrelevant." It would be legal nonsense to argue that both agreed to steal from each other, so theft is OK.

So if I stand in front of you and say, "Please shoot me," and you do so, there is no legal problem? German cannibal

Consent takes place within the context of rights and contract, implied or written. There can be no contract to voluntarily consent to take one's right to life.

[Paul's Here 0]

If your intention is to kill someone, then it is murder regardless of the consent of the victim. (Please let's not get into assisted suicide here.) If both "contestants" know that the intent is to kill, then the imposition of rules is arbitrary. If I am in a sword fight for my life, I'd rather just pull a gun from my pocket and shoot my opponent.

No. It is homicide, not murder.

What is? My pulling a gun to kill him?

Murder is wrongful homicide.

It is wrong to kill someone for sport.

What makes wrongful homicide wrongful? Taking the life of another against his will and for insufficient reason. Dueling for honor provides sufficient reason.

How? Why?

Also dueling for a cash prize is sufficient reason.

How? Why?

Killing in self defense is sufficient reason.

In which case, the intention is self-defense, not killing, which is the action that may result from the intension.

-----------------------

ruveyn

[PhilO 0]

I think a differentiation should be made between a sport *possibly* involving the death of participants, and one *certainly* or *probably* involving their demise.

Anyway, for violent sports such as boxing, I personally can't see how it should be illegal, assuming the the participants are uncoerced into fighting, but it is really stupid and animalistic, with systematic cumulative brain damage guaranteed to the participants. At least martial arts competitions involve incredible skills that only humans could possess and are not geared towards beating the brains out of one's opponent, at least from what little I've seen.

What underscores the low class brutality of boxing is that in reality it isn't even effective as self-defense. At least the martial arts have a purpose, to quickly kill a real enemy, and real skill and long term training is required to learn them effectively.

[styg50 0]

So isn't Boxing/MMA a legally allowed form of deuling? Whether it is explicit or not, the intention of the fighters is for one to be proven the best. There can only be one holder to each title.

It should be noted that, as was mentioned above, boxing in principle isn't physical force in the true sense. The poster mentioned that weight classes and restrictions form a framework of fairness and the skeleton of an injury free sport, while further considerations involving padding, referees, environment engineering and protective gear serve to make the sport truly a "sport." Most amateurs use full protective gear, and that is properly considered legal. In this vein I would argue that, even voluntarily, not using the protective gear would move a boxing match, (and all MMA) into the category of assault. Obviously one or both parties is seeking to inflict physical harm on eachother, and if they succeed, that is not a properly allowable social relationship. Deuling, if it too involves physical harm would properly be illegal. I suppose one could duel with themselves though.

No legal sport should have as one of its goals the inflicting of injuries. American football is a very popular form of sport that walks the line here, with injuries being commonplace and accepted, but there are clearcut rules about NOT inflicting them. Players have been fined by the leagues, suspended, fired, and in very rare instances, even prosecuted for assault. (Too my knowledge nothing came of the prosecution, because intent couldn't be proven.)

[bborg 0]

I think a differentiation should be made between a sport *possibly* involving the death of participants, and one *certainly* or *probably* involving their demise.

I would say, differentiation between death as a minor risk of the activity (minimized by rules and safety gear) and death as the purpose. Normal sports rarely cause even serious injury, whereas the audience of a deadly contest are actually hoping for it. This is a consequence of one kind focusing on life and the abilities possible to man and the other deriving entertainment from suffering.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

No legal sport should have as one of its goals the inflicting of injuries. American football is a very popular form of sport that walks the line here, with injuries being commonplace and accepted, but there are clearcut rules about NOT inflicting them. Players have been fined by the leagues, suspended, fired, and in very rare instances, even prosecuted for assault. (Too my knowledge nothing came of the prosecution, because intent couldn't be proven.)

Do you advocate making prize fighting illegal? The purpose of a professional prize fight is the injury of the opponent either by excessive bleeding (cutting around the eye or mouth) or by rendering him unconscious. No professional boxing match is fought to accumulate skill points. The punches are hard and are meant to hurt. It is nothing like dueling with blunted foils or rapiers. The watchword is NOT touche' but thud! or wham!.

In addition the audience comes to the prize fight to see blood. The spirit of the prize fight is very much akin to the Roman gladiatorial matches and the classical pankration. The idea is to hurt the opponent. That is how victory is gained.

Why should a blood sport be illegal if participation is voluntary and non-participants are protected from injury either by a barrier or distance? If people want to risk death or injury for money and or glory, why should the Law prohibit it?

ruveyn

[Cometmaker 0]

If the Law permits boxing matches which are potentially deadly, why should the law absolutely prohibit dueling wherein the outcome is (most likely) death or serious injury. The rules of dueling are such that only the contestants are at risk. [...] In addition, participation in this sort of deadly contest is -purely voluntary-. No one is compelled to duel to the death (unless you count the impulse to defend honor as compulsion).

[...] If the opponents want to go to the point of voluntary bloodshed why should the Law prohibit it? No one is being deprived of any rights.

Can you clarify if you want an answer on duels for the defense of honour and retention of various tangible and non-tangible possessions, or duels for the purpose of sport.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Can you clarify if you want an answer on duels for the defense of honour and retention of various tangible and non-tangible possessions, or duels for the purpose of sport.

However you wish to answer or qualify the question, I will be happy to read what you write.

ruveyn

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Again, what force? If both parties agree of their own will and no third parties are involved, there is no force.

How did the dead man die?

By being subjected to an action to which he had consented.

I agree--but the purpose of the law is not to make people act rationally. The law IS force, and if you attempt to use it to force people to think the way you do, then you yourself are abandoning reason in favor of force.

No, the purpose of the law is to force people to settle their disagreements peacefully. They may not do so rationally, but they can do so without violence.

They can, but if no third parties are affected, who are you to say they must?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

That's a faulty analogy. The correct one would be: "If your intention is to steal someone's property, then it is theft regardless of the consent of the victim.

What is the difference between taking someone's property and stealing someone's property?

So if I stand in front of you and say, "Please shoot me," and you do so, there is no legal problem?

There may be a problem, since if you only expressed your consent verbally, I have no evidence to prove that I had your consent. But if I have a document that proves beyond reasonable doubt that you agreed to be killed of your own free will, by the judgment of your own sound mind, then ..... but let's not get into assisted suicide.

German cannibal

This is how I commented when they convicted the guy to life in prison:

A suicidal altruist, a cannibal, and a court of injustice. Herr Kant, thy kingdom has come.

That cannibal is a sick pervert and I don't feel sorry for him at all for having to spend the rest of his life in jail. But if it happened the other way around and he roasted and ate that judge, and without his consent, I wouldn't feel sorry for the judge either. There's a certain justice in those who think they own the lives of others learning by experience what it feels like when their lives are owned by others.

Consent takes place within the context of rights and contract, implied or written. There can be no contract to voluntarily consent to take one's right to life.

By the same logic, shopping in a grocery store should still be illegal, since "there can be no contract to voluntarily consent to take one's right to property."

When you buy something a grocery store, you don't take the owner's right to property--you just take his property. Nor does a winner of a death match take his opponent's right to life; he takes the opponent's life, which the opponent has a right to dispose over--and you don't.

[Stussy88 0]

Indeed, I think it could sometime be a better method of settling disputes if both parties agreed than protracted litigation.

You realize that participating in a duel may cause your death, don't you? Litigation can't be that bad!

I think there is hardly ever a rational reason to agree to a duel, but the question is about legality, not rationality, and as we know there are lots of actions that are completely irrational and evil but should still be legal in a free society.

Very good response if I may say so.

Perhaps I should clarify. I would consider a physical contest with someone (such as boxing) but would likely decline a contest involving lethal weapons (swords, pistols etc). My reasoning being, if I was physically bested in a fight, I may sustain injury from which I would likely recover (okay I could die, but odds are aginst it) whereas in a shootout, it's 50/50 however good a shot I reckon I might be.

Litigation isn't that bad! You are quite right.

[bborg 0]

They can, but if no third parties are affected, who are you to say they must?

You could be right, I don’t have a good response to that. However, I would say this much. Considering that such duels involve the deadly use of force, the law needs to preside over them in order for them to be legal.

Let’s say the police hear about a killing and they investigate. The killer admits to his actions, but says that he was engaged in a duel and the victim consented to the rules. Obviously his word is not enough, nor is a signed statement in my opinion, because there could still be doubt about its authenticity or the state of mind of the person who signed it at the time. Maybe he had a gun to his head, maybe threats were made to his family if he didn’t participate, or maybe he was just high or drunk. There are many ways a person’s judgment might be coerced or compromised when the proposition was made that would not be reflected in documentation showing consent. The law simply cannot sit back and allow backyard shootouts and sort it all out later. We’re not talking about trade here, we’re talking about physical force, and the government certainly has the authority to set the rules on how force is used. I believe two conditions would be that the duel be planned for a future date, and that law enforcement be present when it happens. In a sense then, duels within that kind of system would not be a private affair at all but would be sponsored and supervised by the government.