Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Legality of duels?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 2:54:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is actually a pretty famous question on political philosophy quizzes. So, I want to ask you here: do you think that duels to the death between two legal, consenting adults is something that should be legally permissible in a society?

If so, what do you think should be the criteria for a duel? Does a written agreement have to be signed? A verbal agreement between the adults? Etc.?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 5:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People dying= bad for society
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

Another being that through third-party intermediaries, a betting system could be established where poor, desperate people fight to the death in order to win money. Think bum fights to the death.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:18:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally do not support it because there are no issues--in the modern world--that would require duels. I would not participate in one, anyway.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:06:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe it should be legal, but the precautions to make sure that it is not abused should be fairly strict. Maybe it should be notarized.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How about duels as an option for conviction? As in:

"The People find John Doe guilty of first degree aggravated assault on your mother, punishable by an institutionalized duel between you and the convicted."

To be a little dev ad for a minute, perhaps that would allow for a conviction that results in two victims?

Well, I think this is mostly an exercise in identifying exceptions to antimurder morality. I'm sure, with enough imagination, we can come up with a way to viably institute it if we consider the act moral or amoral.
Cleopatra
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would not support a duel to the death but a good old fashioned fist fight between to adults to solve a dispute would be fine by me.
I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman-
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:23:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see a problem with it to be honest, though I'm worried that murder people would say "It was a duel!" or something like that.

Don't have a problem with it in itself, but I have a problem with possible loopholes.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:16:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.

The same argument could be provided against allowing anyone to sign any contract since it could theoretically be signed under duress. On the guy being dead, it can also and especially be applied to wills. Obviously there can never be complete certainty that one's will was not signed under duress, however that doesn't provide sufficient reason to disallow people to control the fate of their estates after their passing since A.) individual cases of this do not necessarily affect anyone else's ability to do so and B.) one has the prima facie right to act non-aggressively with their own property.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

Yeah, I get that. Also, could you imagine the mass killings in gang warfare? Perhaps a good ole' round of fisticuffs, but killing.......I get you there.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:37:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

I hate to sound closed minded but your hypocritical initiation of force is horrifying.
Don't like fights to the death? Don't participate. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:39:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Simply put "believing in liberty" contradicts your position.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:15:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

Have to agree with Ragnar, this is contradictory to a value of freedom when there is a voluntary contract that two consenting adults agree to.

Also, who says "People dying = bad for society" - why? People dying is a necessary component to society.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 7:36:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.

Well, if the dead man is found and material evidence leads one to a suspect, I don't think providing a document showing the man signed a waiver protects the suspect from criminal prosecution. In the eyes of the law, it would still be considered murder.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 10:18:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:15:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

Have to agree with Ragnar, this is contradictory to a value of freedom when there is a voluntary contract that two consenting adults agree to.

Also, who says "People dying = bad for society" - why? People dying is a necessary component to society.

People dying for no other reason then to settle an argument is detrimental to society because it removes workers and labourers who would otherwise be used to provide goods to society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 10:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 10:18:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:15:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

Have to agree with Ragnar, this is contradictory to a value of freedom when there is a voluntary contract that two consenting adults agree to.

Also, who says "People dying = bad for society" - why? People dying is a necessary component to society.

People dying for no other reason then to settle an argument is detrimental to society because it removes workers and labourers who would otherwise be used to provide goods to society.

Of course workers and laborers must decide how they wish to use their time and labor. Killing oneself in a duel basically amounts to one choosing not to work or contribute to society. The same could also be said of someone who chooses not to get a job or someone who chooses to do a really crappy job of their work. Obviously though no one would support banning unemployment, though you could surprise me as you usually do.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 10:45:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 2:54:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is actually a pretty famous question on political philosophy quizzes. So, I want to ask you here: do you think that duels to the death between two legal, consenting adults is something that should be legally permissible in a society?

If so, what do you think should be the criteria for a duel? Does a written agreement have to be signed? A verbal agreement between the adults? Etc.?

How would you retroactively determine the consent of a dead person?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 10:46:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 10:34:22 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 10:18:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:15:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

Have to agree with Ragnar, this is contradictory to a value of freedom when there is a voluntary contract that two consenting adults agree to.

Also, who says "People dying = bad for society" - why? People dying is a necessary component to society.

People dying for no other reason then to settle an argument is detrimental to society because it removes workers and labourers who would otherwise be used to provide goods to society.

Of course workers and laborers must decide how they wish to use their time and labor.
Use their time to allocate their resources to their appropriate labour? Yes. Use their time to be a detriment to society by not working? No.
Killing oneself in a duel basically amounts to one choosing not to work or contribute to society.
But how do you know that he currently does not have a job or will never have a job in the future. These potential or current earnings must be taken into account as this killing would be a detriment to society if he will ever provide some societal benefit.
The same could also be said of someone who chooses not to get a job or someone who chooses to do a really crappy job of their work. Obviously though no one would support banning unemployment, though you could surprise me as you usually do.

Ideally, everybody out of school should be mandated to have some sort of a job.

Solution: Allows duels for people who are only a detriment to society and will never have any considerable prospects of a future job.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 10:49:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 2:16:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.

The same argument could be provided against allowing anyone to sign any contract since it could theoretically be signed under duress. On the guy being dead, it can also and especially be applied to wills. Obviously there can never be complete certainty that one's will was not signed under duress, however that doesn't provide sufficient reason to disallow people to control the fate of their estates after their passing since A.) individual cases of this do not necessarily affect anyone else's ability to do so and B.) one has the prima facie right to act non-aggressively with their own property.

IIRC, Wills need witnesses, and just for that reason. Though you can't rule out collusion.

But, at the end of the day, the worst that could happen is someone gets stuff, material things, they aren't entitled to.

With duels, they get away with murder.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 12:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 10:49:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:16:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.

The same argument could be provided against allowing anyone to sign any contract since it could theoretically be signed under duress. On the guy being dead, it can also and especially be applied to wills. Obviously there can never be complete certainty that one's will was not signed under duress, however that doesn't provide sufficient reason to disallow people to control the fate of their estates after their passing since A.) individual cases of this do not necessarily affect anyone else's ability to do so and B.) one has the prima facie right to act non-aggressively with their own property.

IIRC, Wills need witnesses, and just for that reason. Though you can't rule out collusion.

But, at the end of the day, the worst that could happen is someone gets stuff, material things, they aren't entitled to.

With duels, they get away with murder.

Wills can come to the same result. Forcing someone to include you in his will, you knock him off after he goes through with it. Were left with only the will to go on. Again, contract law is tricky like that. There's always the possibility of collusion or force being involved but I think that would lead courts to demad certain conditions proportionate to the type of contract. A duel correct would likely require mire evidence of consent than the sale of a car.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 12:26:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 12:18:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 10:49:11 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/4/2012 2:16:30 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/3/2012 11:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:06:08 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 1/3/2012 6:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
The problem is the possible loopholes this could lead to.

To give an example, the mob might threaten a man's family unless the man signs the waiver allowing for a death match with a life-long professional. The man is then, for all intents and purposes, legally executed.

I don't think a waiver can be legally binding if it is signed under duress; the contract would be rendered void.

And this would be proven in court how? The guy is already dead.

The same argument could be provided against allowing anyone to sign any contract since it could theoretically be signed under duress. On the guy being dead, it can also and especially be applied to wills. Obviously there can never be complete certainty that one's will was not signed under duress, however that doesn't provide sufficient reason to disallow people to control the fate of their estates after their passing since A.) individual cases of this do not necessarily affect anyone else's ability to do so and B.) one has the prima facie right to act non-aggressively with their own property.

IIRC, Wills need witnesses, and just for that reason. Though you can't rule out collusion.

But, at the end of the day, the worst that could happen is someone gets stuff, material things, they aren't entitled to.

With duels, they get away with murder.

Wills can come to the same result. Forcing someone to include you in his will, you knock him off after he goes through with it. Were left with only the will to go on.

Wills don't allow you to legally kill someone. We're not talking about someone getting away with murder in the traditional sense, but because they can produce a piece of paper that says it was legal.

Your point with wills is take. A will can be forced. But when a will is forced, all that happens is a person gets stuff. A forced contracted duel allows someone to get away with murder. A fake will doesn't allow someone to get away with murder.

Again, contract law is tricky like that. There's always the possibility of collusion or force being involved but I think that would lead courts to demad certain conditions proportionate to the type of contract. A duel correct would likely require mire evidence of consent than the sale of a car.

But it's an issue of whether or not we should allow for the possibility of such mechanisms being used to cover up a murder. If human life is paramount, then any risk is too much.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 12:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:58:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
i hate to sound closed minded and although I agree with liberty, this idea just sounds horrifying and it would be disgusting for a modern civilized society to do this. Don't get me wrong, I believe fighting should be allowed, but not a fight to the death.

I actually agree here, I'm usually pro-freedom and I support the legalization of prostitution but I don't see any social utility that could be derived from legalizing duels. Even if the coercion isn't as explicit as it is in Wnope's example power imbalances are pervasive in human relations. It's widely perceived as a duty for a husband to defend his family, and this contract allows for an enormous escalation given the pride at stake to a conflict which could have been settled otherwise.

In general I support policies which allow for preference satisfaction whether it's drugs or prostitution, but this one seems to be explicitly negative social utility even under ideal conditions.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 1:39:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Omg's post brings up an important point. Different people approach the problem from different philosophical perspectives. Lordknukle approaches from a sort of communistic society matters most attitude, I and Ragnar come from an NAP position, and OMG comes from a utilitarian position. Obviously the four of us will never be able to approach agreement since we operate with different ethical methodologies. Prohibiting consensual duels would decrease personal autonomy but it might increase social utility which is something Knukle and OMG would want while allowing duels would increase personal choice for the individual but society as a whole might not like it which is bad for communist Knukle or utilitarian OMG. Point is were all operating on different wavelengths and agreement is impossible until those points are reconciled.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 1:42:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 10:45:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2012 2:54:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is actually a pretty famous question on political philosophy quizzes. So, I want to ask you here: do you think that duels to the death between two legal, consenting adults is something that should be legally permissible in a society?

If so, what do you think should be the criteria for a duel? Does a written agreement have to be signed? A verbal agreement between the adults? Etc.?

How would you retroactively determine the consent of a dead person?

As was discussed by the ones who agree, contracts and possibly witnesses would be necessary to show consent. The point of contracts is to show exactly what terms of an agreement are and to show consent. Prima facie, contracts and witnesses can be trusted and contract law would evolve according to changing situations (such as high risk agreements like duels). Courts might require an extra burden on contracts to prove consent and to argue that they can't be trusted is really to argue against the very idea of contract based agreements.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 1:48:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 1:42:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 10:45:08 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/3/2012 2:54:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is actually a pretty famous question on political philosophy quizzes. So, I want to ask you here: do you think that duels to the death between two legal, consenting adults is something that should be legally permissible in a society?

If so, what do you think should be the criteria for a duel? Does a written agreement have to be signed? A verbal agreement between the adults? Etc.?

How would you retroactively determine the consent of a dead person?

As was discussed by the ones who agree, contracts and possibly witnesses would be necessary to show consent. The point of contracts is to show exactly what terms of an agreement are and to show consent. Prima facie, contracts and witnesses can be trusted and contract law would evolve according to changing situations (such as high risk agreements like duels). Courts might require an extra burden on contracts to prove consent and to argue that they can't be trusted is really to argue against the very idea of contract based agreements.

If the bolded is true ... then why didn't it? It's not like we're arguing about something new here. Duels existed, and were outlawed. So if we're going to argue that society would adapt to allow duels to exist, then why didn't it? I'd argue it did: by eliminating them. That was the adaptation.

As far as the last statement. It's not a binary choice. It's not: Either they can be implicitly trusted with no room for doubt -OR- they shouldn't be trusted or used at all. Rather the mechanics are designed for them to be trusted to cover almost any situation that could arise, though there is always room for doubt. Otherwise, we would not need contract law, would we?

My contention is, the existing doubt, while small enough for contracts to operate functionaly in society as is, is not appropriate when a human life is on the line.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 2:02:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 1:48:24 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/4/2012 1:42:49 PM, socialpinko wrot
As was discussed by the ones who agree, contracts and possibly witnesses would be necessary to show consent. The point of contracts is to show exactly what terms of an agreement are and to show consent. Prima facie, contracts and witnesses can be trusted and contract law would evolve according to changing situations (such as high risk agreements like duels). Courts might require an extra burden on contracts to prove consent and to argue that they can't be trusted is really to argue against the very idea of contract based agreements.

If the bolded is true ... then why didn't it? It's not like we're arguing about something new here. Duels existed, and were outlawed. So if we're going to argue that society would adapt to allow duels to exist, then why didn't it? I'd argue it did: by eliminating them. That was the adaptation.

Contract laws weren't outlawed necessarily because contract law failed to adapt. It was positively prohibited by a governental authority. Also you seem to have misinterpreted my post. I'm not arguing that contract law would evolve to allow consensual duels to exist (as they were prohibited by a government that would actively suppress people bringing that back), I was arguing that contract law itself would evolve to changes in types of contracts by perhaps requiring a higher burden on contractees. I'm talking about courts in the common law meaning here.

As far as the last statement. It's not a binary choice. It's not: Either they can be implicitly trusted with no room for doubt -OR- they shouldn't be trusted or used at all. Rather the mechanics are designed for them to be trusted to cover almost any situation that could arise, though there is always room for doubt. Otherwise, we would not need contract law, would we?

Yes there is doubt and ther always will be. You seem to be operating on binary choice not me. You're arguing that duels could possibly be abused, therefore they ought to be prohibited. I'm arguing that because there could possibly be abuses, contract law would evolve so as to compensate. I already mentioned the possibility of an extra burden to prove consent.

My contention is, the existing doubt, while small enough for contracts to operate functionaly in society as is, is not appropriate when a human life is on the line.

You should then argue against allowing people to form contracts at all since the "wrong" choices people make still lead to social disutility. Also there's no proper line to draw based on your ambiguous reference to human life. What counts? Is it just if someone is in immediate danger? Is it if someones loife could be ruined as in gambling or using drugs? Is it if someone's life isnt as good as they wanted like through bad business practices? Revering something as non-specifically defined as human life above ones freedom to Fvck up their life is incoherent. I mean who does one live their life for? Do they live it completely for the sake of society or do they own their life and are fundamentally responsible for their own choices whether good or bad. Revering ones life when they don't even care is to say that you own their life.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.