in my mind this falls under bodily autonomy. people have the right to consent to anything being done to their body or not, but also that consent can be given or rescinded at any time. its unethical to legislate away our ability to consent to be shot or stabbed or bludgeoned or killed or whatever, and the person carrying that out shouldnt be punished at all for participating in consensual acts.

i think society in general just gets the ick from the idea of people consenting to things being done to their body that they personally dont understand or would never want and tries to stop it to satisfy their own feelings. we see this applied to all kinds of things like abortion, body modification, drug use, suicide, gender transition, sex acts, sexual partners, etc. its pretty patronizing and only causes additional harm to people seeking those things out without really doing anything to meaningfully stop them.

hopefully at some point in the future human culture will be able to internalize bodily autonomy as an inherent personal right. we're on the road but we've been hitting a few bumps lately...

This totally did sort of used to happen but only for rich people. Juries would often acquit the wealthy for dueling because when they did it, it was seen as honoring a tradition.

No money or land though? Then you just were brawling.

Not every duel was to the death. Bring back sword duels to first blood.

ITT: Witness the decline of American civilization and the return to barbarism under the guise of freedom to do shit.

Let me make a counter argument with just two words: Peer pressure.

Breaking News: Amazon employee and workers rights activist challenged Killgore Union-Strangler to a fight to the death and lost.

As proof they signed a contract with an official notary present, Mr. Fraudsalot McBribe.

Yes and how do we verify that the dead person consented?

I shit you not this precisely is why dueling is illegal.

I can see the allure because it implies that every conflict could become life-threatening, therefore everybody should weigh their words carefully.

In reality though it would emphasize the weight of trained duellists higher than those with well-informed convictions. If you cannot speak the truth because well-paid professional duellists could suppress you anytime by threat of duel (or shame of declining it).

There is a good reason why pretty much every modern civilization stopped this practise: Too much was needlessly lost (see Hamilton, Fermat, many students in the 18th century Europe...).

So... I have thoughts on this, there is a reason the heyday of formal dueling went away.

1. The concept that ones honor was an intangable part of ones person is not as guarded as it was in the 1790s.

2. We know how to make not shit guns.

The point of the formal duel was to stand your ground against the risk of being hurt, not to purpously maim your opponent. This only worked because smooth bore pistols could be weilded by the common man, and they were unlikely to hit the other person (even if you were practiced). The other part was having your second negotiate with the other party on your behalf and waiting a full day at a minimum before any actions were taken (other than making arrangments for arms, a venue and hopefully a doctor).

This whole process would simply not work in [current year] because none of the societal factors are in place. People would not patiently wait 24 hours before taking action, honor is not ascribed to be part of ones person these days, and guns work... they shoot where you point them (so skill is a much bigger factor now than luck, which defeats the purpous).

I so wish as a society we had a conflict resolver that fit a similar role, but thats pure fantasy.

lol what no wtf why are you looking for a loophole to kill peeps, you murder hobo

Lotta shining intellects in here debating a fucking meme

I think it’s an Oregon.. not sure. But there’s a state that lets Consenting adults participate in a fist fight as long as a police officer referees it

In the US Mutual Combat is mostly legal in Washington and Texas, but not to the death

Ethically speaking, yes. Bodily autonomy. But making it legal? Hmmm that's complicated.

How do we determine if someone has truly consented? Imagine Mr. Beast organizing "to the death" duels with large prizes. Delusional individuals could get themselves killed when they actually don't want to die. Or even desperate people. How about mental illnesses? How about drunken duels?

What if someone engages in a duel, but doesn't die? More strain on the healthcare system, the foster care system and the disability benefits side of things

Listen, I'm all for MAID. But in maid, these factors are all checked out. Meaningful consent is obtained.

I mean these are things that I can think of first. I haven't given this much thought, so forgive me if there are mistakes lol

hockey is legal so shrugs

People, people, please! What's with all this violence? I have a different proposal. How about every year, for one day only...

(you know where this is going)

So many flaws.

In the first world, "sorry Timmy, your broken leg will need to wait. Some asshole got himself stabbed in a fight to the death and we need to deal with him first."

Even in the third world, "sorry Timmy, your missing leg will need to wait. Some rich asshole got himself stabbed in a fight to the death and we're getting paid more to deal with him first."

Who is responsible for the coroner? Who cleans up the blood? Where do these activities take place? How do you keep the violence from propagating? How do you stop collateral damage? Who is responsible for all of this?