Dueling

[Andrew Ryan]

Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What do you think about dueling? Would you accept a challenge to a duel?

I certainly would.

 

[Bushido216]

No. It's idiotic. It's a left-over from when apes used to fight each other for mating rights. Not deciding questions by who's a better shot is what separates us from the apes.

 

[SithDoughnut]

In all honesty, assuming both people were willing participants, I wouldn't say it's immoral. If you want to get yourself killed, you can. Especially if it means that you're not around to pass these stupid ideas on to the next generation.

 

[MoonLancer]

Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What do you think about dueling? Would you accept a challenge to a duel?

I certainly would.

A little fun fact about dueling. It was believed in a dual that god would choose the winner. The idea of not killing someone if thye slipped or fumbled was laughable. It was believed such things was god condemning that person to die.

That said, i would dual if it was for the right reasons.

 

[quatona]

Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What do you think about dueling? Would you accept a challenge to a duel?

Sure - violence is always the best and preferable solution.
I´d choose nukes, though.

 

[Verv]

In all honesty, assuming both people were willing participants, I wouldn't say it's immoral. If you want to get yourself killed, you can. Especially if it means that you're not around to pass these stupid ideas on to the next generation.

Well, the question isn't: "Should dueling be legal?" Rather, a moral question is brought up.

Duels can be for any number of things but what were they most often about?

I am guessing issues of honor, belief; perhaps money from time to time.

I guess if a man dueled someone whom he believed was the killer of a loved one but it was incapable of being proven in law, I could see something 'just' about his decision and even heroic.

However, if it was for something like, "He insulted my woman," or "He talked poorly about me behind my back and I feel slighted," etc. it would be quite an immoral thing.

People should not kill each other unless extremely serious circumstances were to arrive.

 

[Benevolous]

Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What do you think about dueling? Would you accept a challenge to a duel?

I certainly would.

I've said many times that we should bring back dueling. It would be a good way to clear up the backlog in our courts and to make people think twice before bring frivolous lawsuits and accusations. Plus, it's kinda cool.

 

[Chesterton]

People still duel informally with fists or whatever, even though the action doesn't have legal status, right?

 

[No Swansong]

In all honesty, assuming both people were willing participants, I wouldn't say it's immoral. If you want to get yourself killed, you can. Especially if it means that you're not around to pass these stupid ideas on to the next generation.

On the bright side they could be nominated for the Darwin Award.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well, the question isn't: "Should dueling be legal?" Rather, a moral question is brought up.

Duels can be for any number of things but what were they most often about?

I am guessing issues of honor, belief; perhaps money from time to time.

I guess if a man dueled someone whom he believed was the killer of a loved one but it was incapable of being proven in law, I could see something 'just' about his decision and even heroic.

However, if it was for something like, "He insulted my woman," or "He talked poorly about me behind my back and I feel slighted," etc. it would be quite an immoral thing.

People should not kill each other unless extremely serious circumstances were to arrive.

Like I said, if both participants are willing, then I see nothing wrong with duelling at all. I think it's stupid, but if someone challenges you to a duel for insulting them and you accept, then that's fine - it's your life after all. Forcing someone into a duel is assault/murder/attempted murder/etc. (depends on the outcome), and consequently is immoral, but if you volunteer yourself, there's no moral issue in my opinion.

 

[Verv]

So if an action does not directly effect you, and it is between consenting people, it is not moral or immoral?

These actions though affect third parties.

Let's take a family man who is the prime bread winner for his children -- if he decides to fight, and duel, and goes and dies for a silly reason and leaves his family destitute, is this not an immoral action? Even if he wins -- to have risked his dependents on something like this is an immoral act.

 

[yasic]

My views are the same as Sith.

 

[keith99]

No one seems to have mentioned the facts about historic dueling. It gave a huge advantage to the already advantaged class. One need not duel themself, a proxy could be used. Men were often baited or almost forced into duels. A commoner (even if allowed to duel) would stand almost no chance in a duel with swords against someone who had trained for years with that weapon. (I had a few lessons with Marie Rommery, U.S. womens champion for over a decade. I was actually fairly decent. It took her measurable time to get a point, as in 2-3 seconds).

Dueling looks decent in a romanticised world, but then almost anything does.

In the real world it is a bad thing. The only advantage I see is it is better than gang wars where innocent bystanders get caught ion the middle.

 

[MoonLancer]

No one seems to have mentioned the facts about historic dueling. It gave a huge advantage to the already advantaged class. One need not duel themself, a proxy could be used. Men were often baited or almost forced into duels. A commoner (even if allowed to duel) would stand almost no chance in a duel with swords against someone who had trained for years with that weapon. (I had a few lessons with Marie Rommery, U.S. womens champion for over a decade. I was actually fairly decent. It took her measurable time to get a point, as in 2-3 seconds).

Dueling looks decent in a romanticised world, but then almost anything does.

In the real world it is a bad thing. The only advantage I see is it is better than gang wars where innocent bystanders get caught ion the middle.

typicly different classes would not dual each-other. A knight and a noble would not dual a serf. It was considered beneath them.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So if an action does not directly effect you, and it is between consenting people, it is not moral or immoral?

More or less.

These actions though affect third parties.

Let's take a family man who is the prime bread winner for his children -- if he decides to fight, and duel, and goes and dies for a silly reason and leaves his family destitute, is this not an immoral action? Even if he wins -- to have risked his dependents on something like this is an immoral act.

Leaving the family is the immoral action. Dueling, not so much. There are other ways to leave your family destitute.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

For those that say it's 'stupid', explain to me why, define and articulate this.

I will respond more properly once this is explained.

 

[daveth]

Translation by Charles H. Johnston

XXXIII

With a sharp epigram it's pleasant
to infuriate a clumsy foe;
and, as observer, to be present
and watch him stubbornly bring low
his thrusting horns, and as he passes
blush to descry in looking-glasses
his foolish face; more pleasant yet
to hear him howl: ``that's me!'' You'll get
more joy still when with mute insistence
you help him to an honoured fate
by calmly aiming at his pate
from any gentlemanly distance;
but when you've managed his despatch
you won't find that quite so much catch...
{170}

XXXIV

What if your pistol-shot has smitten
a friend of yours in his first youth
because some glance of his has bitten
your pride, some answer, or in truth
some nonsense thrown up while carousing,
or if himself, with rage arousing,
he's called you out -- say, in your soul
what feelings would assume control
if, motionless, no life appearing,
death on his brow, your friend should lie,
stiffening as the hours go by,
before you on the ground, unhearing,
unspeaking, too, but stretched out there
deaf to the voice of your despair?

 

[quatona]

For those that say it's 'stupid', explain to me why, define and articulate this.

I won´t say its stupid until I will have at least understood what the purpose and idea behind it is supposed to be. So far it´s simply completely beyond me why anyone would do it.

 

[Mystman]

Sure, I'd duel... if I could choose the manner of fighting (for most enemies, I'd go for both contestants following a lecture on some new discovery in the field of biophysics, and then directly afterwards making an exam on the lecture.. person with the least questions answered correctly gets killed).

Duels involving guns/swords/fists are a bit stupid, since they in no way prove "superiority" in the modern world. Back when being the strongest meant that you could be the chief of your tribe, a duel made sense. Sword dueling was already a bit pointless, but at least there was still some strength/skills->political power relationship during some time (not talking about duels amongst 16th century swordfighters..). Pistol duels make no sense: no one has ever been made commander of an army or king or whatever because he could point a pistol at someone (at least, not that I know of). Being able to make a pistol might be a sign of superiority in some way (or at least, a sign of employability), but being able to shoot it just shows "congrats - you're now on the same level as some random thug from the slums of XYZ".

If it's just about killing/incapacitating the other guy, instead of a show of superiority, duels again make no sense, since they place arbitrary restrictions on what you can use. If I had an appointment to a duel at some time/place, I'd just call the police to inform them that some madman was running around with a gun at time/place. Tada, he get's imprisoned, I win. But that's probably not within the "spirit" of dueling..

 

[daveth]

I won´t say its stupid until I will have at least understood what the purpose and idea behind it is supposed to be. So far it´s simply completely beyond me why anyone would do it.

Public opinion -- here's our idol,
the spring of honour, and the pin
on which the world is doomed to spin.

(Tr. by Ch.Johnston)