Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Modest Proposal: Revive Gladiatorial Combat!

YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 6:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I advocate a return to pure athletics: gladiatorial combat.

To preface this, I would restrict the minimum age of entry to 18 years and I wouldn't advocate the harming of animals -unless you count humans as animals- and I would 'force' no one.

I would allow willing participants who of sound mind signed waivers to fight to the death for the amusement of others with all non-combustive, hand-held weapons they may choose, that both parties agree on before the duel. This would be an excellent way to solve business disputes, questions of honor or relieve stress.
Tsar of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 8:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have no intrinsic moral dispute with gladiator sports. However I would have a large objection for them to exist within a capitalist system. There are just way too many conflicts of interest within the free market for this to have any chance of being just. Gladiators must be motivated by honor and glory... sport. Not money. Money bastardizes everything, and it's obvious that many who would otherwise like to raise families and live a comfortable life would instead turn to fighting only because money has forced them there.
Rob
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 8:02:27 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I have no intrinsic moral dispute with gladiator sports. However I would have a large objection for them to exist within a capitalist system. There are just way too many conflicts of interest within the free market for this to have any chance of being just. Gladiators must be motivated by honor and glory... sport. Not money. Money bastardizes everything, and it's obvious that many who would otherwise like to raise families and live a comfortable life would instead turn to fighting only because money has forced them there.

So if people have an external incentive -like money- to do something, their decision is somehow less 'pure' or 'authentic' then it otherwise would be (divested of that external incentive)?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 11:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 8:03:14 PM, Lasagna wrote:
And 18 years old is not old enough. 18 year olds are still babies.

18 years old is the age of majority so legally... they're adults, but I grant you that most 18 year olds are horribly unprepared to make significant decisions of any kind. I can grant that point, as such.
Tsar of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 9:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/12/2012 11:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 8:02:27 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I have no intrinsic moral dispute with gladiator sports. However I would have a large objection for them to exist within a capitalist system. There are just way too many conflicts of interest within the free market for this to have any chance of being just. Gladiators must be motivated by honor and glory... sport. Not money. Money bastardizes everything, and it's obvious that many who would otherwise like to raise families and live a comfortable life would instead turn to fighting only because money has forced them there.

So if people have an external incentive -like money- to do something, their decision is somehow less 'pure' or 'authentic' then it otherwise would be (divested of that external incentive)?

Not all external incentives - just money. If you had no wish to fight but were poor enough, you be pushed into doing this even though you didn't want to. That to me is the antithesis of freedom. Ironically we are even freer being physically banned from competing than we are being allowed, because of the effects of class and wealth.
Rob
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 10:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 9:39:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 8:02:27 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I have no intrinsic moral dispute with gladiator sports. However I would have a large objection for them to exist within a capitalist system. There are just way too many conflicts of interest within the free market for this to have any chance of being just. Gladiators must be motivated by honor and glory... sport. Not money. Money bastardizes everything, and it's obvious that many who would otherwise like to raise families and live a comfortable life would instead turn to fighting only because money has forced them there.

So if people have an external incentive -like money- to do something, their decision is somehow less 'pure' or 'authentic' then it otherwise would be (divested of that external incentive)?

Not all external incentives - just money. If you had no wish to fight but were poor enough, you be pushed into doing this even though you didn't want to. That to me is the antithesis of freedom. Ironically we are even freer being physically banned from competing than we are being allowed, because of the effects of class and wealth.

So you take issue with all compensated labor?
Tsar of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2012 3:15:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 10:58:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/13/2012 9:39:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/12/2012 11:39:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/12/2012 8:02:27 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I have no intrinsic moral dispute with gladiator sports. However I would have a large objection for them to exist within a capitalist system. There are just way too many conflicts of interest within the free market for this to have any chance of being just. Gladiators must be motivated by honor and glory... sport. Not money. Money bastardizes everything, and it's obvious that many who would otherwise like to raise families and live a comfortable life would instead turn to fighting only because money has forced them there.

So if people have an external incentive -like money- to do something, their decision is somehow less 'pure' or 'authentic' then it otherwise would be (divested of that external incentive)?

Not all external incentives - just money. If you had no wish to fight but were poor enough, you be pushed into doing this even though you didn't want to. That to me is the antithesis of freedom. Ironically we are even freer being physically banned from competing than we are being allowed, because of the effects of class and wealth.

So you take issue with all compensated labor?

Just about... At least half of the professions we have nowadays consist of things no sane person would ever want to spend their time doing. We are compensated with the ability to use certain goods and services, but nobody ever stops to think about whether the trouble we go through at our jobs is worth the benefit of said goods and services. And when you really start to think about this "progress" we are achieving, the effects are far more ubiquitous than simply wasting our lives in miserable professions (kind of a hard point to get across on DDO because of the young median age here, most of you haven't spent long years in menial labor with a boot to your throat from your supervisor... you are all still starry-eyed with ambition and either a) don't realize how much of your soul you will be sacrificing to your careers or b) are banking on others to have to do the jobs you don't want to do [probably both]). Other effects include environmental damage, loss of innate human abilities, nationalism, cultural damage, and the proliferation of human vice (obviously this list needs to be expounded upon but I'm keeping it short and sweet).

Your idea for gladiatorial combat is just one of an infinite number of facets that capitalism creates conflicts of interest for. You're right in my opinion, that there really is no intrinsically unethical reason to ban it. If two people consent and want to do it, then why shouldn't they? The problem here is that you are assuming that individuals are free to make the choice to combat in the first place. In this day and age, we are knee-deep in all types of pressures from all types of angles. Without ever choosing to be involved in this system, we are required to submit to competitive wage-labor in order to acquire the means to live. You can't just introduce gladiator sports into this scheme because you are essentially forcing some people to fight to the death. Think about it. You get convicted of a crime (maybe you got caught smoking weed) and now you are unhireable in your current profession. You can't just go live on the land somewhere because everything is owned. Your choice is either to accept a difficult life in menial labor or else try your hand at fighting. This isn't a choice of free-will, this is catch-22. And there are many more facets of the equation that are equally as vile when you consider the cultural components and the profit motive.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 5:07:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you had no wish to fight but were poor enough, you be pushed into doing this even though you didn't want to.
Poor pre-legal gladiator combat: Starve plus X choices.

Poor post-legal gladiator combat: Starve plus X plus gladiator combat choices.

Nothing to it but an enhancement of your options.
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.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:13:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 5:07:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you had no wish to fight but were poor enough, you be pushed into doing this even though you didn't want to.
Poor pre-legal gladiator combat: Starve plus X choices.

Poor post-legal gladiator combat: Starve plus X plus gladiator combat choices.

Nothing to it but an enhancement of your options.

OK that logic is sound but there has to be more options than just starve + fight in gladiator bouts. The problem here, and the problem I think that it always comes down to when you and I start rebutting each other, is that I don't have the choice to opt out of society. Every piece of grass, tree, and river is owned by somebody, so I have no escape if, say, I was very poor and didn't want to fight. I might really want to just live off the land and grow some crops, hopefully perhaps to find a community that is communistic where profit, technology, and the like are not emphasized. But profiteers have long since appropriated everything away and if I am to survive I must participate somehow. In this sort of system, where things are tightly constrained, you can't just start opening options like this because in no time it will become socially responsible to fight when you are broke, since you have no other option.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ProwlerKnight
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 11:19:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly don't see how death is reasonable, I mean war is one thing but killing for sheer pleasure is immoral on any level, however, the idea of Death Row inmates is quite different since their moral-value is already low.

As for the comments about labor, I don't recall ever being told life was going to be easy, and I was made aware of the "sacrifice" I was going to have to make for my career, and I'm only 20 and have enough understanding for hard labor, but that's the thing with life, it's not for quitters or cop-outs, it's pure will and determination as well endurance, the strongest assest any person can have, so I don't know if that was the point you are trying to make but that's what life is.
"Life ain't about hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep on moving, how much you can take, and keep on going"- Rocky Balboa