Should adults be allowed to compete in death matches? [Archive I]

Raza

November 2, 2006, 07:27 PM

I'm a pretty strong libertarian, and philosophically, yeah, I should be supporting this, but alas, we live in societies that need be able to function. Allowing deathmatches, it seems to me, is a recipe for a sick society.
Oh, yay. Another 'libertarian' that backs out when it gets 'sick'.

Or maybe you have some sort of concrete definition of 'sick' that makes your point make sense? At the very least though, I think that any political philosophy worth supporting should be applicable consistently. At worst, you can delay one innovation until another has been made, but to rule it out entirely is admitting that your philosophy is flawed.

It'll never happen. This country has a vested interest in those adults staying alive and watching Survivor, not voting and paying taxes.

It's call freedom. Why do you hate it?
Dude, think of the viewing numbers of deathmatches. Live on TV, and taped from 16 angles for the best view in repeats. DVD boxed set. You sacrifice a few to get a lot more from everyone else... not like there aren't enough people. And did you watch Gladiator? Nothing distracts the public from political scandals like some good old fashioned recreational slaughter!

theyeti

November 2, 2006, 07:36 PM

Autonemesis

November 2, 2006, 07:38 PM

This is the sort of poison libertarianism evokes. That it prompted someone to ask this question is a great reason to oppose it on principle.

EsoCyn

November 2, 2006, 07:48 PM

Raza

November 2, 2006, 07:55 PM

We used to have such a system. It was called dueling.

The problem with dueling, and what eventually led to its outlaw, was that a whole system of honor grew up around it so as to make it virtually impossible for someone to opt out of a challenge without losing face. People wound up in duels that they had no desire to be in simply because backing out branded them a coward and severely damaged their reputation. We lost a famous founding father because of that.

So it's not really a matter of free choice when you are forced to suffer penalties for not participating.

theyeti
It's still a free choice. A strong minded individual can say no. Not so strong minded individuals should be stimulated to become strong minded, as such progress is a factor in solving practically every single social problem.

But yes, it's still a reason not to allow it. The reason is culture bound though, so with the change of culture, its weight can decrease.

This is the sort of poison libertarianism evokes. That it prompted someone to ask this question is a great reason to oppose it on principle.
Oh yeah, oppose a philosophy 'on principle' because you dislike the questions its asking. That's real intellectually honest.

Is this really a serious question within libertarian circles? When I was a right-winged libertarian, this sort of crap was never brought up. Who fucking cares?

Who in the fuck would want to be in a death match in the first place? Who does that shit? I'd say they probably belong in the mental institution if that's a serious option in their lives.
You'd be surprised. Morbidity and violence are secretly enjoyed by many people, as can be observed by looking at subcultures where expressing such things is less villified - or your tv, at that. And not everyone that isn't stuck in stereotypical thinking is mentally ill. People may simply not value their life much, or value the thrill more than the risk. People do many such things in other situations. Who are we to tell them they're wrong or ill, when it can be expressed without harm to others through means like this?

untermensche

November 2, 2006, 07:59 PM

Is this really a serious question within libertarian circles? When I was a right-winged libertarian, this sort of crap was never brought up. Who fucking cares?

Who in the fuck would want to be in a death match in the first place? Who does that shit? I'd say they probably belong in the mental institution if that's a serious option in their lives.
If we just brought back gladiatorial games.

Then we might get this empire thing we're trying to do right.

We need to cheapen the value of human life in peoples minds.

And stop caring about all these babies that cry about collateral damage.

Death matches would be a good step in this direction.

Graeme

November 2, 2006, 07:59 PM

No. It's crossing the line. I'm in favour of letting people do stupid things to themselves but making exceptions for already existant manslaughter/murder laws seems unnecessary.

Autonemesis

November 2, 2006, 08:01 PM

Oh yeah, oppose a philosophy 'on principle' because you dislike the questions its asking. That's real intellectually honest.

In what way is it dishonest? Death matches are anathema. A social philosophy that prompts people to wonder whether it should be permitted is bankrupt from the get-go. Any social phiilosophy worth considering should leave no doubt that death matches are incompatible with civil society.

Who are we to tell them they're wrong or ill, when it can be expressed without harm to others through means like this?

Without harm? Are you a sociopath?

Octavia

November 2, 2006, 08:01 PM

I'd say they probably belong in the mental institution if that's a serious option in their lives.

That's one of the things I'd be worried about. The OP doesn't stipulate that the adults be mentally competent.

Raza

November 2, 2006, 08:04 PM

In what way is it dishonest? Death matches are anathema. A social philosophy that prompts people to wonder whether it should be permitted is bankrupt from the get-go. Any social phiilosophy worth considering should leave no doubt that death matches are incompatible with civil society.

It's intellectually dishonest to establish your conclusions before entertaining the idea. You can call it whatever fancy words you want, but unless that term has every possible argument about them already considered in its definition, it's irrelevant.

That's one of the things I'd be worried about. The OP doesn't stipulate that the adults be mentally competent.
So? Defining mental competence in relation to recieving civil freedoms is a slippery slope at best, and near impossible in cases such as these where the freedom is to do something so abnormal that a lot of psychology would condemn you as mentally incompetent simply for wanting to use it. Far less troublesome for everyone to just hold them responsible for their own decisions.

Ok, I can see maybe people diagnosed with a very temporary inability to judge, and one that we understand the workings and can verify the cause of rather than just assume exists because we dislike the subject's behaviour, being disallowed from participation for limited periods of time. But other than that, no.

Autonemesis

November 2, 2006, 08:08 PM

It's intellectually dishonest to establish your conclusions before entertaining the idea.

It is sociopathic to entertain seriously the idea that death matches should be permitted. If your philosophy can't provide you with a basis to dismiss this idea out-of-hand, then I want no part of it.

Booyakasha!

November 2, 2006, 08:13 PM

Do you honestly think that very many people would exercise the right if it was granted to them?

It only takes to people to agree to this, and the other 100 million of us will be watching it on pay per view.

A society has to have some standards, IMO. I am libertarian, but I don't think it is practical to be 100% "pure" on libertarian philosophy.

Raza

November 2, 2006, 08:13 PM

untermensche

November 2, 2006, 08:14 PM

Sending men to Iraq is sending them to a death match.

It's perfectly legal.

Done right in the open.

hughmcjr

November 2, 2006, 08:40 PM

This could get into a constitutional debate here in the US. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not a right to death. At least not in writing.

Autonemesis

November 2, 2006, 08:46 PM

K, stay away from relativism then.

I have no idea what you mean. I am a moral relativist and I have no problem condemning death matches, or calling a society that permits them inhumane, or a social philosophy that can't find a basis for condemning them, bankrupt as a social philosophy. What good is a social framework that permits people to kill each other for sport? Do you know what "social" means?

Happy Wonderer

November 2, 2006, 08:49 PM

Seems more like MF&P to me. What's political here?

HW the mover

Raza

November 2, 2006, 08:50 PM

I have no idea what you mean. I am a moral relativist and I have no problem condemning death matches, or calling a society that permits them inhumane, or a social philosophy that can't find a basis for condemning them, bankrupt as a social philosophy. What good is a social framework that permits people to kill each other for sport? Do you know what "social" means?

Relativism does not permit you to dismiss any idea out of hand, because it asserts that the validity or invalidity of any idea can only come from other things, which must be checked to establish that validity.

And 'social' means related to the interaction between living, sentient creatures. It has nothing to do with being nice and fluffy.

Autonemesis

November 2, 2006, 08:58 PM

Relativism does not permit you to dismiss any idea out of hand, because it asserts that the validity or invalidity of any idea can only come from other things, which must be checked to establish that validity.

Yeah, ever heard of humanism? I dismissed your idea based on that. It's inhumane to allow people to kill each other for sport.

And 'social' means related to the interaction between living, sentient creatures. It has nothing to do with being nice and fluffy.

Who said it did? If we permit death matches, why limit them to consensual death matches? Why elevate preserving consent above preserving life? If I were to accept that death matches are permissible, I cannot find any reason to limit them to consensual death matches.

Pastor's Nightmare

November 2, 2006, 09:09 PM

<edited>

I think I just lost my appetite for any form of libertarianism. Guess that was a good fuckin' poll.

Pastor's Nightmare

November 2, 2006, 09:16 PM

Yes. My life is mine, to live and to end as I wish. I wouldn't want anyone to infringe on that basic ownership, therefore I couldn't give less to anyone else.

Do you know anyone that ever thought about suicide and later asked themselves what the fuck they were thinking?

Do you know anyone that ever got angry for a short period of time, maybe after a few beers?

Most people are levelheaded most of the time, and the majority of people have lost their cool at some point in their lives. It only takes one fuckup.

Pastor's Nightmare

November 2, 2006, 09:18 PM

Why elevate preserving consent above preserving life?

Brilliantly stated.

Pastor's Nightmare

November 2, 2006, 09:19 PM

You 9. <edited>

At what age does this competition to the death become an option?

Pastor's Nightmare

November 2, 2006, 09:28 PM

Seems more like MF&P to me. What's political here?

HW the mover

This is at the heart of extreme libertarianism. I'd recommend not moving this. It would be a shame for censorship to go that far.

Coooolo70

November 2, 2006, 09:35 PM

untermensche

November 2, 2006, 09:59 PM

sure it should be allowed... they don't harm anyone but each other, and if they consent to it there's no problem....

i don't get why anyone would say it isn't... just seems like people wanting to force their beliefs on others.
The desire for a person to subject themself to such a thing is a pathology.

A humane society would protect these people from their pathology, their extreme obssession with death and killing.

WWFStern

November 2, 2006, 10:20 PM

It is sociopathic to entertain seriously the idea that death matches should be permitted. If your philosophy can't provide you with a basis to dismiss this idea out-of-hand, then I want no part of it.

What's wrong with the philosophy that I own my life as a piece of property? Considering that my life is my property, I can put it at stake in a death match if I want to. Government has no place in the issue.

WWFStern

November 2, 2006, 10:24 PM

The desire for a person to subject themself to such a thing is a pathology.

A humane society would protect these people from their pathology, their extreme obssession with death and killing.

Society ought not protect one from oneself.

If I want to agree to a death match, nobody ought to impede my free exercise of choice.

My body is my property. My life is my property. I may extinguish either or both on my whim.

Coooolo70

November 2, 2006, 11:08 PM

The desire for a person to subject themself to such a thing is a pathology.

A humane society would protect these people from their pathology, their extreme obssession with death and killing.

whys that? people like doing different things... if they think like that it doesn't matter what 'state of mind' they are in, not everyone thinks the same, why should this be different? it's their choice.

let's assume they are insane even- so? why can't they kill themselves? it is what they want at the time and their life is theirs, not yours.

Loren Pechtel

November 2, 2006, 11:09 PM

Deathmatch sports: Repugnant but tolerable.

Dueling: The honor problem makes it sufficiently coercive that I don't think it should be permitted.

Castorama

November 3, 2006, 01:00 AM

Raza - I agree with your philosophy.

One Requirement, though -

Combatants cover the risk of their actions with health insurance, if the revenue raised is not high enough to do this.

I'm not paying for Johnny Knoxville and Steve-O to heal for three months, in hospital.

David Vestal

November 3, 2006, 06:36 AM

Do you know anyone that ever thought about suicide and later asked themselves what the fuck they were thinking?

Do you know anyone that ever got angry for a short period of time, maybe after a few beers?

There are also people who make big-ticket impulse buys that they later regret. There are 24-hour wedding chapels in Vegas for people who want to tie the knot to a stranger. Should we enforce mandatory waiting periods on these people, or should we respect their right to live their lives, fuckups and all, with minimal government handholding?

David Vestal

November 3, 2006, 06:39 AM

The desire for a person to subject themself to such a thing is a pathology.

A humane society would protect these people from their pathology, their extreme obssession with death and killing.

Firstly, why is it a pathology? Because you consider it overly weird? Secondly, why do you assume that anyone who would participate in a fight to the death must have an "extreme obsession with death and killing?" Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.

Tom Sawyer

November 3, 2006, 09:31 AM

There are also people who make big-ticket impulse buys that they later regret. There are 24-hour wedding chapels in Vegas for people who want to tie the knot to a stranger. Should we enforce mandatory waiting periods on these people, or should we respect their right to live their lives, fuckups and all, with minimal government handholding?

There's a huge difference between these and a death match. In those cases, there's an opportunity to back out afterwards if they feel they've made a bad decision. That option doesn't apply to a death match, since one of the people will be dead. While the government has no business in the cases you described, they're really not comparable to what the thread is about.

Jack the Bodiless

November 3, 2006, 10:05 AM

In principle, people should be free to risk their lives if they want to (or even commit suicide).

But there would be some very undesirable side-effects. It could become a form of duelling. And what about the effect on impressionable teenagers? They would adopt, as role-models, sports stars who kill people. It could also create a culture in which it becomes customary for the victor in a playground scrap or a street brawl to kill his vanquished opponent.

Larry Niven mentioned it in one of his Known Space books, as a form of population control. Everyone has one "Birthright", the right to have one child. There are various ways of getting additional Birthrights, all of them quite difficult to attain. One involves a deathmatch between two people who haven't yet used up their Birthright First: the winner gains his Birthright Second and Third, the loser loses his Birthright First and his life. I suppose that if nobody could do this more than once, they won't get to be "sporting celebrities".

David Vestal

November 3, 2006, 10:17 AM

There's a huge difference between these and a death match. In those cases, there's an opportunity to back out afterwards if they feel they've made a bad decision. That option doesn't apply to a death match, since one of the people will be dead. While the government has no business in the cases you described, they're really not comparable to what the thread is about.

Actually, in neither of those examples can the person back out without consequences, often drastic ones. But be that as it may, it sounds almost as if you wouldn't have a problem with deathmatches, as long as the participants could opt out in the middle of the fight. If they chose not to opt out, even if losing, you seem okay with that. Is that your position?

Chili

November 3, 2006, 10:39 AM

Never since most people do not know their ass from a whole in the ground and once they do they know that their challenger doesn't and will refrain to spare his life.

Chili

November 3, 2006, 10:46 AM

Society ought not protect one from oneself.

If I want to agree to a death match, nobody ought to impede my free exercise of choice.

My body is my property. My life is my property. I may extinguish either or both on my whim.

Except that you are an illusion and therefore your body is not yours.

Notice the dualism in "my body" as if you are not your body, and your life is not property but your body is property of life and that obviously in not yours or you would not have a life but just be alive.

dancer_rnb

November 3, 2006, 11:05 AM

Yeah, ever heard of humanism? I dismissed your idea based on that. It's inhumane to allow people to kill each other for sport.

Who said it did? If we permit death matches, why limit them to consensual death matches? Why elevate preserving consent above preserving life? If I were to accept that death matches are permissible, I cannot find any reason to limit them to consensual death matches.

Especially if there is money to be made!:devil3:

Marc Higbie

November 3, 2006, 11:54 AM

Especially if there is money to be made!:devil3:

Plus we've got all the over filled prsions anyway...

Survivor: Cage Match!
Winner gets a pardon and a million bucks, losers get blunt or edged weapon trauma leading to death.

This Sunday Sunday Sunday only on pay-per-view!

Marc

djrafikie

November 3, 2006, 12:02 PM

why not? Beats Ally Mcbeal

nightwyrm

November 3, 2006, 12:26 PM

Sweet, gladiator matches are so cool.
Next, we could feed environmentalists to the hungry lions, tigers and bears since those people seem so willing to sacrifice themselves to save endangered species.

Tangent

November 3, 2006, 12:57 PM

Society ought not protect one from oneself.

If I want to agree to a death match, nobody ought to impede my free exercise of choice.

My body is my property. My life is my property. I may extinguish either or both on my whim.

But you do not exist in a vacuum. With this justification why are you obligated to do anything?

What if the participants have spouses? Children? What if they are the child's only parent? Does their responsibility to others or even their society preclude their apparent right to extinquish their own life?

Bomb#20

November 3, 2006, 01:15 PM

3. The fight will continue until one dies.
Should it be allowed?
Of course not. The losing participant most likely changes his mind and withdraws consent when he's about to die. And the rest of us have every right to respect his choice in this matter, and prosecute the winner for murder.

It is sociopathic to entertain seriously the idea that death matches should be permitted.
That's unrealistic, on the basis of statistics alone. Plenty of societies have accepted dueling. The idea that every person in those societies who wasn't opposed to the practice was a sociopath is just lousy psychiatry. You might as well call it sociopathic to seriously entertain the idea that governments should be permitted to ban atheism, homosexuality, communism or holocaust denial. People permit all sorts of evil things because toxic cultures spread the memes for them.

This is the sort of poison libertarianism evokes.
Libertarianism no more requires accepting death matches than accepting debtors' prisons, people selling themselves into slavery, or Shakespeare's "pound of flesh". Why the heck should the rest of us be bound by your contract when it's against public policy and we didn't enter into it? If you sell yourself into slavery and then you change your mind and run away and your master tries to take you back by force, any rational libertarian is going to side with the slave. When consent is withdrawn, slavery becomes kidnapping, and death matches become murder.

That it prompted someone to ask this question is a great reason to oppose it on principle. ... Death matches are anathema. A social philosophy that prompts people to wonder whether it should be permitted is bankrupt from the get-go. Any social phiilosophy worth considering should leave no doubt that death matches are incompatible with civil society. ... If your philosophy can't provide you with a basis to dismiss this idea out-of-hand, then I want no part of it.
If we permit death matches, why limit them to consensual death matches? If I were to accept that death matches are permissible, I cannot find any reason to limit them to consensual death matches.
That your philosophy can't find any reason to ban nonconsensual death matches even if we legalize dueling is a great reason to oppose it on principle. Coerced death matches are anathema. A social philosophy that prompts people to equate a freely entered contract with the "Contenders: Series 7"* scenario is bankrupt from the get-go and incompatible with civil society, and I want no part of it.

So, does this line of argument convince you you were wrong? :) You're basically just doing proof-by-assertion.

(* Awesome movie, by the way...)

Why elevate preserving consent above preserving life?
How do you feel about forcing extreme medical care on people with Do-not-resuscitate declarations? What about the Judith Thomson scenario, where you're seized by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to an unconscious violinist for nine months so your kidneys can keep his body alive until he recovers from his illness -- would you approve if the state prohibited you from disconnecting yourself, fleeing your kidnappers, and leaving the unfortunate violinist to die? For that matter, what are you doing even posting on IIDB? Shouldn't your computer have been confiscated and sold to pay for medical care for the poor?

I think I just lost my appetite for any form of libertarianism. Guess that was a good f****n' poll.
Does the existence of Pol Pot make you lose your appetite for any form of government intervention?

Seems more like MF&P to me. What's political here?
HW the mover
This is at the heart of extreme libertarianism. I'd recommend not moving this. It would be a shame for censorship to go that far.
I agree with you that this is political and moving it here was unnecessary. But crying censorship over stuff like this is beyond the pale. The thread is still easily accessible to every participant and would-be reader.

What's wrong with the philosophy that I own my life as a piece of property? Considering that my life is my property, I can put it at stake in a death match if I want to. Government has no place in the issue.
So if somebody sold himself into slavery and then he changed his mind and ran away, you'd side with the master? Because somebody was once desperate and got in over his head a long time ago, you'd bring back floggings and the Fugitive Slave Act? How do you feel about loan sharks breaking people's fingers to make them pay up?

Society ought not protect one from oneself.
If I want to agree to a death match, nobody ought to impede my free exercise of choice.
My body is my property. My life is my property. I may extinguish either or both on my whim.
But we're not protecting you from yourself. We're protecting you from the other guy in your death match.

Chris Weimer

November 3, 2006, 01:31 PM

That's one of the things I'd be worried about. The OP doesn't stipulate that the adults be mentally competent.

Those mentally unable to sign a contract, or rather unable to understand the consequences of signing a contract, should not be allowed to sign a contract anyway. Thus we avoid the problem altogether. I for one would find no joy in watching someone brutally massacre an invalid. I'd like to see equal powers going at it, not a blowout.

ZikZak

November 3, 2006, 02:12 PM

But you do not exist in a vacuum. With this justification why are you obligated to do anything?

You're not. You're only obligated to perform actions which you have agreed to obligate yourself to perform. Just because other people exist in the world doesn't obligate you to consider their desires in choices you make that do not concern them. Similarly, nosy neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with your decision should have no power to make it for you.

What if the participants have spouses? Children? What if they are the child's only parent? Does their responsibility to others or even their society preclude their apparent right to extinquish their own life?

Nothing here to me would justify outright criminalizing death matches. We criminalize an action when that action always causes palpable harm to a nonconsenting other. Hence murder should be illegal because it ends the life of a nonconsenting other.

However, one can and does enter into agreements with others that might contractually prohibit one from engaging in a death match.

Spouses: it depends on the nature of your contract/agreement with your spouse. If it involves supporting them materially for as long as you are able, then you would likely be violating that contract by engaging in a death match... but again, maybe not. What if the winner was to be awarded $10 million?

Society: Screw society. You have no implicit obligations whatsoever to strangers simply by virtue of being born (aside from doing them no nonconsensual harm) and no one has the right to expect anything from you simply by virtue of your being alive.

Children: Here there is room for debate. I believe that having a child is an implicit contract to support them until they are capable of supporting themselves. After all, they weren't consulted about being born. Again, however, a contractual issue, not a criminal one.

Tangent

November 3, 2006, 04:36 PM

You're not. You're only obligated to perform actions which you have agreed to obligate yourself to perform. Just because other people exist in the world doesn't obligate you to consider their desires in choices you make that do not concern them. Similarly, nosy neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with your decision should have no power to make it for you.

It doesn't take much to find a connection between an action and another person that would be considered to "concern" them. At what point is the degree of seperation enough to no longer have their concern be valid? It sounds nice on a discussion board or in a book to say you can see who would be affected by an action. In real life it's never that simple.

Spouses: it depends on the nature of your contract/agreement with your spouse. If it involves supporting them materially for as long as you are able, then you would likely be violating that contract by engaging in a death match... but again, maybe not. What if the winner was to be awarded $10 million?

That is a gamble with an irreversable outcome. Would it be violating the contract to spend the entire family's earnings at a casino hoping to win $10 million instead?

Society: Screw society. You have no implicit obligations whatsoever to strangers simply by virtue of being born (aside from doing them no nonconsensual harm) and no one has the right to expect anything from you simply by virtue of your being alive.

If you live in the woods and don't take part in any of the benefits of society, this holds true. As soon as you associate yourself with a society by making use of their amenities, you form a contract with that society.

Children: Here there is room for debate. I believe that having a child is an implicit contract to support them until they are capable of supporting themselves. After all, they weren't consulted about being born. Again, however, a contractual issue, not a criminal one.

I agree. My point wasn't as much in direct regard to death matches, but rather the idea of "whateva, I own my body I'll do what I want". That is a bit naive to me seeing as pretty much every action one makes has an effect on the people/society/world around them.

ZikZak

November 3, 2006, 08:04 PM

It doesn't take much to find a connection between an action and another person that would be considered to "concern" them. At what point is the degree of seperation enough to no longer have their concern be valid? It sounds nice on a discussion board or in a book to say you can see who would be affected by an action. In real life it's never that simple.

It's a good question, and we could spend much time debating it. I have long since decided on criteria that work for me. The real question for me is whether entering the death match takes unfair advantage of nonconsenting others or causes immediate palpable harm to nonconcenting others. Clearly, a random dude fighting to the death causes you no unfair disadvantage.

The alternative is passing a law (in other words, using force and/or the threat of force) to stop death matches. The use of force against nonconcenting others is in itself an excellent definition of immoral behavior (however necessary it might be in certain circumstances) and should be limited to those cases where palbable harm is being done to nonconcenting others.

That is a gamble with an irreversable outcome. Would it be violating the contract to spend the entire family's earnings at a casino hoping to win $10 million instead?

(shrug) It depends on the agreement between the parties. What if the person had no other possible way of supporting his family? Would you forcibly stop him from making that decision? What possible concern is it of yours? Shall we outlaw gambling now?

If you live in the woods and don't take part in any of the benefits of society, this holds true. As soon as you associate yourself with a society by making use of their amenities, you form a contract with that society.

Nonsense. I pay taxes and receive benefits in return. When I receive a "benefit" of society (such as eating in a restaurant or going to a hospital), I pay for the priviledge. We're even, and there is no remaining obligation to me. There's nothing whatsoever that obligates me to do more than that. I CERTAINLY don't have an obligation to "contribute" by getting a job, if that's what you're driving at. That's why when you get paid for doing a job, they call it "compensation."

It is impossible to form a contract with "society." Contracts and agreements are between individuals or groups of individuals. If I don't have an agreement with you personally that limits my ownership of my body, how the heck does that change just because there are 3 million people with whom I don't have such a contract? Again, what possible interest can you conceivably have over how others choose to live their lives?

Morgana

November 3, 2006, 08:13 PM

Castorama

November 3, 2006, 08:28 PM

Morgana: The real world is messier than the sanitized description in the OP. Somehow I don't imagine two rational healthy people saying, "How about we fight each other to the death?", "Sure thing!", and then drawing up papers.Let others choose what is rational for themselves. As long as their ideas are stable, over a period of time, you can't argue with them.

What about mental illness? We try to prevent depressed people from committing suicide. If that is reasonable, why would we allow this form of suicide?Depression is often bipolar, therefore someone killing themselves on a low could be quite tragic. All depression is despised by its beholder, yet can be helped by others. The focus here, should be on saving the person from something that they really don't want to do, but for a condition from which they can be saved. This is not to say that I am against allowing euthanasia of the depressed, after a period of stabilisation.

The fight is also a bad analogy for suicide, especially when the prize for winning is so high.

Suppose I want to put on a tv show on this theme. I offer to pay $250,000 to both contestants (or their heirs). I find two consenting adults, set up cameras, let one of them kill the other, and put it on cable. Any problems?Only with the capitalism, but as an idea that is consistent with capitalism, I have no problem.

Betelnut

November 3, 2006, 10:22 PM

I don't have anything against suicide, but I do have something against murder. "Death match" is simply another way of saying "contractual murder." Presumabley, each combatant thinks he or she will be the victor. But one of them won't be. He or she will be dead. "Giving consent" beforehand would be like someone signing a release before performing a dangerous stunt or undergoing experimental surgery.

The original question did not mention money (as I recall), but a lot of other people have. Adding in a large monetary reward for participating in a murder makes it more disturbing. I guess I'm old fashioned--if you are going to beat someone to death (or however the fuck these things are supposed to work), I'd want it to be because of an irrational emotion such as hate, i.e. "You fucked my wife, let's fight to the death!" Money as a motivator is too cold and hard to make the situation anything more than watching a dog or cock fight. I'd like to think human beings are more than that (although, they aren't, I know, I know).

Right now, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone for doing the above--the "victor" would just have to be willing to face the consequences.

Sanctioning legalized murder, especially for profit motive, is sick.

Tangent

November 3, 2006, 10:56 PM

Again, what possible interest can you conceivably have over how others choose to live their lives?

None at all :D, at least, as I figure we can both agree, insomuch as it doesn't concern others without their consent.

Personally I'd just like to see a moral philosophy taught which doesn't rely on an imaginary father in the sky.

untermensche

November 3, 2006, 11:49 PM

Firstly, why is it a pathology? Because you consider it overly weird? Secondly, why do you assume that anyone who would participate in a fight to the death must have an "extreme obsession with death and killing?" Seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
If a person had some intense uncontrollable desire to beat another to death, that is clearly some pathology. Severe sadism.

If they had the desire for another to beat them to death, again, clearly a pathology. Severe masochism.

If they don't really care which of these pathologies are expressed, an example of the two pathologies in one person.

placebo messiah

November 4, 2006, 12:26 AM

no i don't think adults should be allowed to compete in death matches

this is a sport reserved exclusively for children and poultry

David Vestal

November 4, 2006, 06:33 AM

If a person had some intense uncontrollable desire to beat another to death, that is clearly some pathology. Severe sadism.

It's also a blatant strawman. I don't recall reading anything about an "intense uncontrollable desire to beat someone to death," until you wrote it.

If they had the desire for another to beat them to death, again, clearly a pathology. Severe masochism.
Strawm....ahhh, what the hell. I agree with you; deathmatches should be illegal because it's pathological to want to beat crippled veterans with baseball bats and then shit on their wheelchairs.

David Vestal

November 4, 2006, 06:41 AM

The real world is messier than the sanitized description in the OP. Somehow I don't imagine two rational healthy people saying, "How about we fight each other to the death?", "Sure thing!", and then drawing up papers.

What about mental illness? We try to prevent depressed people from committing suicide. If that is reasonable, why would we allow this form of suicide?

Suppose I want to put on a tv show on this theme. I offer to pay $250,000 to both contestants (or their heirs). I find two consenting adults, set up cameras, let one of them kill the other, and put it on cable. Any problems?

Bringing up possible mental illness and other mitigating factors is a red herring.

Suppose there are no detectable factors that would cause you to consider the participants incompetent to give consent. Suppose that as far as you can tell, the two participants are mentally healthy, not goaded by peer pressure, etc. In this hypothetical scenario, assume that the situation really is as sanitized as the OP suggests, if not more so. Should they be allowed to have a deathmatch?

If you don't think so, then tell me why intelligent, consenting, competent people, in the absence of any external pressures, shouldn't be allowed to have a deathmatch.

Tao of Pooh

November 4, 2006, 06:46 AM

Nialler

November 4, 2006, 06:58 AM

There are obvious problems with this.

How does "consent" become established? What if one person changes their mind immediately before the fight, and after the publicity is complete and the audience has paid their money?

Where does it stop? Can I have a private deathmatch? Heck, if I force someone to sign a consent form at gunpoint and then beat him to dath, can I claim that it was a private deathmatch?

What weapons are allowable? What happens if this rule is broken: a guy is losing and manages to kill his opponent with a hidden weapon? Is he done for murder? He can always claim "self-defence", and it would be valid - in all probability.

This is the conundrum: there must be rules, otherwise there is no spectacle. Without rules, either person could arm himself with the most vicuos and deadly weapons known to science. Poisons would be used. There would be no spectacle as they both die within seconds of the start. So there must be rules. But, as I pointed out, breaking the rules can always be justified by the "self-defense" claim.

The question also arises of who would contest these matches. By definition, no-one with wealth or property will want to do it; the contestants will come from the poor and the disadvantaged. The lower classes providing death as entertainment for the monied classes? Sounds like societal progress there.

The money available would also act as an inducement to human-trafficking - with the traffickers keeping the purse.

It would also act as a tragic and undignified way for people to get out of crippling debt. Again, exploitation of the put-upon.

The perceived freedom to offer up your life for purposes of entertainment is easily trumped by the effects that it would have on that society.

As for my right to dispense with my own life and my own body as I see fit - well, I already have many many ways of expressing it; I don't need a deathmatch in order to commit suicide. And if I tried to sign a consent form in that frame of mind any competent person would deny that it was true consent.

The idea is barbarous, exploitative, and idiotic all in one.

David Vestal

November 4, 2006, 07:05 AM

There are obvious problems with this.

Right, but not insurmountable. It's beside the point to talk about the potential problems. The most fundamental question is "is it EVER permissible for two humans to consent to fight to the death."

It just wanders off track to respond by saying that this group can't, because they can't give consent, and that group can't, because they're unfairly pressured to fight, and that group can't, because they have familial obligations. The question is, can anyone?

This is the conundrum: there must be rules, otherwise there is no spectacle.

Who said that "spectacle" was one of the goals?

Tao of Pooh

November 4, 2006, 07:06 AM

No. It's crossing the line. I'm in favour of letting people do stupid things to themselves but making exceptions for already existant manslaughter/murder laws seems unnecessary.

But we already make exceptions for existant assault laws with boxing, wrestling and other "acceptable" blood sports, as well as a whole string of vehicular crimes with car racing.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.

Tartantyco

November 4, 2006, 07:19 AM

-I would not necessarily subscribe to the scenario put forth by the OP but if someone wants to fight to the death then they should be allowed to. If you join the army then you are actually doing the same thing.

-Now, this is how I would see it: The opponents would have to be adults(18+/20+), have no children and be mentally healthy. All those who wanted to take part would sign a contract stating that they concent to this; the contract would not force them to take part in anything. Participants would not be eligable for health care outside that which they(Or a sponsor perhaps) can pay themselves. The fight would last only for as long as the particpants wanted, anyone could back out at any time, death being a possibility. Participants would have to agree to a fight several months ahead and reaffirm the agreement again before the fight, having the right to back out at any time during the fight. A strict code would also be followed by the participants.

-I don't think I would ever take part in such an event, though I might watch it. I will never deny someone the right to do with their lives as they please unless it hurts non-conscenting people.

Nialler

November 4, 2006, 07:19 AM

Right, but not insurmountable. It's beside the point to talk about the potential problems. The most fundamental question is "is it EVER permissible for two humans to consent to fight to the death."

It just wanders off track to respond by saying that this group can't, because they can't give consent, and that group can't, because they're unfairly pressured to fight, and that group can't, because they have familial obligations. The question is, can anyone?

Who said that "spectacle" was one of the goals?

OK, if spectacle isn't one of the goals, then fine. It can be done in private.

This will involve enormous amounts of police time to establish consent, and since it's so provate, it won't allow for an open and transparent assessment of whether there was actually consent, and whether that consent continued right up to the moment of death. It shoudl be added that to cater for the last-minute change of mind, there would have to be extensive medical staff and facilities on-hand to deal with a seriously injured person. Do you think that such a use of limited medical assets realises the best benefit of them?

It would take up police time, court time, and medical resources.

All of which are paid to be of better use to society.

Tao of Pooh

November 4, 2006, 07:23 AM

no i don't think adults should be allowed to compete in death matches

this is a sport reserved exclusively for children and poultry

Hmmm, would that be like a child vs child or chicken vs chicken thingie or a child vs chicken thingie?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.

David Vestal

November 4, 2006, 07:31 AM

OK, if spectacle isn't one of the goals, then fine. It can be done in private.

This will involve enormous amounts of police time to establish consent, and since it's so provate, it won't allow for an open and transparent assessment of whether there was actually consent, and whether that consent continued right up to the moment of death. It shoudl be added that to cater for the last-minute change of mind, there would have to be extensive medical staff and facilities on-hand to deal with a seriously injured person. Do you think that such a use of limited medical assets realises the best benefit of them?

It would take up police time, court time, and medical resources.

All of which are paid to be of better use to society.

Perhaps. So your argument that deathmatches shouldn't be allowed rests not on the ethics of deathmatches per se, but on the inconvenience of regulating them?

Bomb#20

November 4, 2006, 02:28 PM

You're only obligated to perform actions which you have agreed to obligate yourself to perform. Just because other people exist in the world doesn't obligate you to consider their desires in choices you make that do not concern them. ...
Society: Screw society. You have no implicit obligations whatsoever to strangers simply by virtue of being born (aside from doing them no nonconsensual harm)
Let's suppose you're stranded alone on a desert island. And let's suppose you declare to the wind "I promise to go into the bushes to relieve myself.". Would you consider yourself therefore obligated to do that? I assume you wouldn't.

Now let's add another person to the island. He's grossed out when he sees you peeing on the beach and complains. Wanting him to shut up about it already, you make the same promise. Now would you consider yourself obligated?

So it's the existence of other people affected by your actions that obligates you to keep your promises. This applies even though your action isn't harming any nonconsensual other -- if the guy doesn't like watching you pee he can just look somewhere else. And it applies even though you didn't voluntarily obligate yourself to keep your promises, by promising to keep your promises. (And even if, bizarrely, you did. Some promise must have been the first, and you made no earlier promise to keep that one.)

This means contracts have no power to create obligations out of nothing. If there's no pre-existing uncontracted obligation, then a contract is just a piece of paper.

Nothing here to me would justify outright criminalizing death matches. We criminalize an action when that action always causes palpable harm to a nonconsenting other. Hence murder should be illegal because it ends the life of a nonconsenting other.
What basis is there for thinking a death match participant still consents to being stabbed at the moment his enemy's sword is going into him? Judging from the amount of effort he was just putting into trying to parry the thrust, it sort of looks like he wants very badly not to be stabbed.

Nialler

November 4, 2006, 03:17 PM

But we already make exceptions for existant assault laws with boxing, wrestling and other "acceptable" blood sports, as well as a whole string of vehicular crimes with car racing.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.

In theory, however, such sports as boxing are subject to a licence whereby the contestants must first prove their health and reflexes and their ability to compete.

Nialler

November 4, 2006, 03:19 PM

Perhaps. So your argument that deathmatches shouldn't be allowed rests not on the ethics of deathmatches per se, but on the inconvenience of regulating them?
Nope. It rests on teh greater cost to society of indulging such practices. There does come a time in even the most libertarian philosophies where the needs of society exceed those of the individual.

WWFStern

November 4, 2006, 03:56 PM

But you do not exist in a vacuum. With this justification why are you obligated to do anything?

What if the participants have spouses? Children? What if they are the child's only parent? Does their responsibility to others or even their society preclude their apparent right to extinquish their own life?

In a word, "No."

Individual rights trump perceived social responsibilities. A father has just as much natural right to commit suicide as does a single man with no social responsibilities whatsoever.

I own my body. I own my life. I can destroy either on my whim, and should be able to do so without governmental interference in the exercise of my will.

untermensche

November 4, 2006, 08:29 PM

It's also a blatant strawman. I don't recall reading anything about an "intense uncontrollable desire to beat someone to death," until you wrote it.
If this is not some intense desire then why would a person submit to such nonsense? Why would they be made to suffer from forbidding this nonsensical behavior? How are they harmed in any way by forbidding this nonsensical behavior?

The only people who could be harmed by forbidding this nonsense would be those who had intense desires to submit to this nonsense.

If a person had no strong desire to submit to this nonsense then there is no problem with forbidding it.

Betelnut

November 4, 2006, 09:15 PM

Once again I ask, how is a "death match" different from murder? Both people are trying like hell to not be killed, each wants to win, i.e. live. (I am assuming that the proposed "death matches" are not, in actuality, "assisted suicides" which would be a different situation--one person wouldn't be fighting back at all.)

So how are these "death matches" any different from two assholes in a bar "taking it outside" to the parking lot where they will pummel/stab/shoot each other? Just because a contract is signed? Bah! "I agree to murder John Smith or allow myself to be murdered by John Smith... I and my family agree that no one will sue him for any result of this action. Nor will he be arrested for taking this action as I am undergoing it of my free will. If I'm merely maimed, I will not sue him or his family, etc."

Please don't arrest me officer! We had a contract! He said I could kill him!

Defending this bullshit in the name of "freedom" is truly ridiculous.

Coooolo70

November 4, 2006, 10:20 PM

of course you will try not to die... at least, most will... but who cares? fact is they agree that they could die and accept that possible consequence.

Chili

November 4, 2006, 10:22 PM

In a word, "No."

Individual rights trump perceived social responsibilities. .

The reality is that you do not own your body and never will. Life is sacred and that includes your life.

Without going into the reason why life is sacred just ask yourself why in America today fertility clinics outnumber abortion clinics.

Oh, and I am not against abortion or even against you killing yourself.

Coooolo70

November 4, 2006, 10:27 PM

The reality is that you do not own your body and never will. Life is sacred and that includes your life.

Without going into the reason why life is sacred just ask yourself why in America today fertility clinics outnumber abortion clinics.

Oh, and I am not against abortion or even against you killing yourself.

how are you defining 'you'?

Tao of Pooh

November 5, 2006, 03:33 AM

In theory, however, such sports as boxing are subject to a licence whereby the contestants must first prove their health and reflexes and their ability to compete.

And what would be the difference with death matches?
What I see, and don't agree with, in a lot of these posts is that most of the posters think deathmatches would be unregulated free-for-alls streetbrawls. I see them as being another sports event subject to rules, regulations, etc...

If you are what you eat then I am fast, cheap and easy;)

Unbeatable

November 5, 2006, 04:22 AM

I don't think I'd be interested in watching, but I guess I can get behind the idea of allowing it, if only because it's the best way to kill the sorts of people who would actually want to go and kill a stranger for sport. Normally, we'd have to wait for these guys to actually commit a capital crime, get caught, go to trial, and wait all those years to be executed. With death matches, all we'd have to do is wait for their winning streak to end. Of course there'd need to be some kind of screening to ensure that the participants are actually fit to consent. Also, I'm kind of hoping the legal rationales involved with death matches could lead somewhere down the line to the legalization of snuff porn, so that'd be a personal bonus.

ETA: Uh, actually I do kind of have some reservations about what this might do culturally to our society. I mean, it's one thing to spin killing people as "protecting democracy" or "defending your family against home invaders" or "It's my body to do with as I please", but this death match thing sort of jumps over the line between "arguably necessary killing" and "completely contrived, unnecessary, arbitrary killing with no socially redeeming purpose and only a weak rationalization about individual autonomy to justify it". Hmm. When I think of it that way, I think I have to amend my response. I'm fine with the status quo and have no real motivation to see it changed (other than the snuff thing, but that's just quid pro quo and a bit of a long shot anyway). If people want to kill, they can join the army. If people want to die, well, I'm in favor of legalizing suicide. Legalizing homicide is iffier.

So I guess you can put me down for partial support.

Tao of Pooh

November 5, 2006, 04:53 AM

Castorama

November 5, 2006, 08:04 AM

Unbeatable:Satan is lord, all hail Satan aka your lord. Yes! It worked! For ten minutes, your mind belonged to me! Next up? The might of Allāh is on it's way, Booyakasha!, and there's nothing you can do about it!

RenegadeOfPhunk

November 5, 2006, 08:25 AM

Obesity is one of the biggest killers in the Western World. And yet we allow fast food chains to pedal this stuff openly and freely.

...and some of you are having a moral 'hissy-fit' over theoretical consensual 'death-matches'?!

I'm sure some of the people who have died from heart attacks - due to their clogged up tubing - after their 10,000th grease-ridden hamburger had children too...

Nialler

November 5, 2006, 08:52 AM

And what would be the difference with death matches?
What I see, and don't agree with, in a lot of these posts is that most of the posters think deathmatches would be unregulated free-for-alls streetbrawls. I see them as being another sports event subject to rules, regulations, etc...

If you are what you eat then I am fast, cheap and easy;)

Rules? But as I asked earlier. what if they are broken? The person breaking them can claim self-defence if it comes to law. The other guy was trying to kill him after all.

WWFStern

November 5, 2006, 01:22 PM

The reality is that you do not own your body and never will. Life is sacred and that includes your life.

I do own my body and my life, by virtue of the fact that it would be absurd for anybody else to own my bodily person. Ownership of my body and my life includes the right to destroy them on my whim.

"Life is sacred" is an opinion for which no supporting scientific evidence could be presented.

EarlOfLade

November 5, 2006, 01:43 PM

How many religious people voted yes?

This so sick that I can't even begin to phatom that anyone would allow this.

ZikZak

November 5, 2006, 01:46 PM

So it's the existence of other people affected by your actions that obligates you to keep your promises. This applies even though your action isn't harming any nonconsensual other -- if the guy doesn't like watching you pee he can just look somewhere else. And it applies even though you didn't voluntarily obligate yourself to keep your promises, by promising to keep your promises. (And even if, bizarrely, you did. Some promise must have been the first, and you made no earlier promise to keep that one.)

This means contracts have no power to create obligations out of nothing. If there's no pre-existing uncontracted obligation, then a contract is just a piece of paper.

All logical systems suffer from Godel's Incompleteness. What's your point?

JamesBannon

November 5, 2006, 03:11 PM

"Life is sacred" is an opinion for which no supporting scientific evidence could be presented.
And the point of this remark is what? I voted an unequivocal "no". It's barbaric and puts society back into the dark ages where such practices were commonplace. I have no wish to promote such times as being "moral". Freedom is not absolute and to imagine otherwise is insanity, just like religionist belief.

abaddon

November 5, 2006, 03:43 PM

Whether we own our bodies are not is irrelevant, just as is consent. The question comes down to killing people -- ie homicide, not suicide -- since anyone entering these kind of games intends to end lives (for show and money), not to die.

Coooolo70

November 5, 2006, 03:56 PM

WWFStern

November 5, 2006, 04:05 PM

And the point of this remark is what? I voted an unequivocal "no". It's barbaric and puts society back into the dark ages where such practices were commonplace. I have no wish to promote such times as being "moral". Freedom is not absolute and to imagine otherwise is insanity, just like religionist belief.

Morality is irrelevant to the issue at hand, since morality simply is a matter of opinion.

What does matter is liberty, the principle of self-ownership, and the right to extinguish one's life at one's whim. Consent is what's relevant. If a person consents to the possibility of being killed in a death match, then it's OK.

JamesBannon

November 5, 2006, 04:07 PM

Morality is irrelevant to the issue at hand, since morality simply is a matter of opinion.

What does matter is liberty, the principle of self-ownership, and the right to extinguish one's life at one's whim. Consent is what's relevant. If a person consents to the possibility of being killed in a death match, then it's OK.
Since when is an issue of liberty not an issue of morality? You might as well argue that liberty is merely a matter of opinion.

Castorama

November 5, 2006, 04:17 PM

JamesBannon:Since when is an issue of liberty not an issue of morality?It is only an issue of informed, stable and consenting partakers' morality. In the meantime, the 'unbarbaric' people as you would so elitely put it, should act to make such contests as fair, well planned and safe as possible.

JamesBannon

November 5, 2006, 06:28 PM

JamesBannon:It is only an issue of informed, stable and consenting partakers' morality. In the meantime, the 'unbarbaric' people as you would so elitely put it, should act to make such contests as fair, well planned and safe as possible.
You're on my ignore list but I will respond to this one. Safe? You have got to be joking! A society that supports killing for fun or profit is not a society I wish to be a member of. Don't we kill each other enough already for stupid reasons? Absolute freedom is a dangerous extreme libertarian fantasy. Jeez it's like talking to religionists!

Bomb#20

November 5, 2006, 07:14 PM

This means contracts have no power to create obligations out of nothing. If there's no pre-existing uncontracted obligation, then a contract is just a piece of paper.
All logical systems suffer from Godel's Incompleteness. What's your point?
Actually, that theorem applies to some systems and not others, and moral theories aren't covered; but this isn't Mathematical Foundations & Principles.

My minor point is that as Isaac Asimov put it, "Two is a ridiculous number and cannot exist." :) If there can be two uncontracted obligations, why can't there be three? If you can have an obligation to do no harm, and you can have an obligation to keep your promises, maybe you can also have, say, an obligation to show up and testify, if you're somebody's only alibi and otherwise he'll go to prison. And maybe also an obligation to pay a share of the taxes that keep the Fire Department going. And maybe...

My major point is that contracts aren't an adequate foundation for morality, and this implies that Social Contract theory is a waste of effort. It was invented as a replacement for the Divine Right of Kings, to serve as the new justification for why people ought to obey whatever government rules the theorist thinks we should obey. But contracts don't have the power to do that job. So people who say stuff like "As soon as you associate yourself with a society by making use of their amenities, you form a contract with that society." might as well give it a rest. Inventing mythical contracts is pointless. Why try to conjure a contract out of thin air when even a real contract can't conjure an obligation out of thin air?

So if somebody wants us to obey the government, he shouldn't waste his time and ours arguing that we agreed to do so, if he can't show we ought to stick to our agreements. And if he can show we ought to stick to our agreements, then whatever that conclusion is based on is an immeasurably more promising basis for reasoning about what our obligations to a society are than some fairy-tale contract that nobody signed.

Castorama

November 5, 2006, 07:43 PM

JamesBannon:You're on my ignore listAnd you say that you oppose self - destructive behaviour! Please!! Put the funny away!!!

Safe? You have got to be joking! A society that supports killing for fun or profit is not a society I wish to be a member of.Back to the protectionist argument, then. What I am for is a society based on the final nature of informed consent, whatever it be to. Whether profit is made, or not is a matter for the economic outlook of a society, so if it is a capitalist model (which I am against), then so be it. You have to be consistent, otherwise you are using an economic argument as a smokescreen for your dictatorial moral prejudices.

Absolute freedom is a dangerous extreme libertarian fantasy.Dangerous to what? Your unshakeable, holier - than - thou set of moral preconceptions?

Jeez it's like talking to religionists!What type of religionist says its totally respectable and allowable to pursue your preferred form of delusion, as long as you never force it upon someone else? And, James – you’re the one advocating external morality!

abaddon

November 5, 2006, 08:39 PM

... the 'unbarbaric' people as you would so elitely put it, should act to make such contests as fair, well planned and safe as possible.

"Consent" to murder and be murdered... we should make such contests as "fair, well planned and safe as possible."

The following is an argument worthy of this kind of input:

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

WWFStern

November 5, 2006, 09:56 PM

Why couldn't somebody consent to be murdered?

I own my life. I own my body. If I wanted to have my life extinguished, why should I be stopped?

abaddon

November 5, 2006, 10:09 PM

It's the consent to murder that I'm focusing on. It's making it into an OK thing that concerns me.

Is seeing things from outside their own personal viewpoint (I! me! mine!) so terribly difficult for some people in this forum?

WWFStern

November 5, 2006, 10:14 PM

I think the points are these:

Individuals own their lives.

As such, individuals may extinguish their lives on their whim.

They may choose to extinguish their lives themselves, or may choose to have somebody else do it for them. Either is acceptable, so long as all parties involved are consenting adults.

Castorama

November 6, 2006, 04:55 AM

"Consent" to murder and be murdered... we should make such contests as "fair, well planned and safe as possible."

The following is an argument worthy of this kind of input:

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:Fair - You can't be having an unfair contest, where life or death could be decided by rules (unless one fighter agrees to this).

Well Planned - Basically, insurance must be in place, where the gates, etc can't pay for injuries. The events should be partly officiated by police (subsidised by the gates), especially early in their life.

Safe - Obvously the maiming / killing does not come into my analysis here, but we must be sure that the fighters are mentally stable and know of the rules. They must also be allowed to withdraw at any time (the event is far too lengthly not to respect the consent of fighters who change their minds)

JamesBannon

November 6, 2006, 06:10 AM

Dangerous to what? Your unshakeable, holier - than - thou set of moral preconceptions?
No! It's because absolute freedom doesn't exist, just as god doesn't exist. What people have done here is to replace god with another equally incoherent and stupid absolutist notion. Liberty is certainly important but to argue that it is the only thing that is of absolute importance in moral terms is just plain crazy.

Another thing, assisted suicide is an entirely different situation with no parallel to a death match. In a death match, death is not the aim, life is. As for rules, what rules? There is only one rule in a death match (or in war): be alive at the end of it. To imagine that we can invent rules to be sure that a death match is "fair" is just as insane as imagining that we can invent rules to make war fair. There is no fairness in war, there is only death and destruction.

Unbeatable

November 6, 2006, 09:45 AM

"Life is sacred" is an opinion for which no supporting scientific evidence could be presented.

That puts it in the same category as "natural rights" and "ownership".

WWFStern

November 6, 2006, 07:08 PM

That puts it in the same category as "natural rights" and "ownership".

Absolutely. I am stating my opinions when discussing natural rights and ownership rights. After all, "rights" cannot be found under a microscope. The notion is purely subjective.

Libertarianism is the proper philosophy for relativists such as myself. In that philosophy, we each are allowed to form our own opinions with regard to those matters, and can escape the displeasure of having somebody else's standards inflicted upon us. In my view, I own my body and my life. Therefore, I should be allowed to act as such.

Your opinions with regard to rights and ownership aren't particularly relevant strictly with respect to my life and my body.

ZikZak

November 6, 2006, 08:11 PM

Actually, that theorem applies to some systems and not others, and moral theories aren't covered; but this isn't Mathematical Foundations & Principles.

Yeah, well, I knew it was kind of stupid when I posted it.

My minor point is that as Isaac Asimov put it, "Two is a ridiculous number and cannot exist." :) If there can be two uncontracted obligations, why can't there be three? If you can have an obligation to do no harm, and you can have an obligation to keep your promises, maybe you can also have, say, an obligation to show up and testify, if you're somebody's only alibi and otherwise he'll go to prison. And maybe also an obligation to pay a share of the taxes that keep the Fire Department going. And maybe...

My major point is that contracts aren't an adequate foundation for morality, and this implies that Social Contract theory is a waste of effort.

I completely agree that contracts aren't an adequate foundation for morality, but that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about law. The question isn't whether death matches are immoral, but whether they should be criminalized. There's a difference, and a society that forgets that (like ours) is well on the way to authoritarianism.

In my mind, only acts that cause harm to nonconsenting others should be criminalized. Otherwise, we'd be passing laws and applying force to people simply because of the "ick" factor. Alas, in reality we do that all the time and make a habit of creating victimless crimes out of thin air. That is not a wise approach for anyone who cares to engage in anything that others might consider "icky:" in other words, everyone. Well, everyone interesting, anyway.

Betelnut

November 6, 2006, 10:12 PM

Individuals own their lives.

As such, individuals may extinguish their lives on their whim.

They may choose to extinguish their lives themselves, or may choose to have somebody else do it for them. Either is acceptable, so long as all parties involved are consenting adults.

Once again, some people seem to think that "death matches" are about suicide, or people "choosing to extinguish their lives themselves." But, as someone else has also noted, that's not what "death matches" are about--they are about killing the other person, not about allowing yourself to be killed! Each person is going into the match thinking/wanting/hoping to survive. Therefore, their mindset is "kill that person."

Murder is about intent. When someone is convicted of 1st degree murder vs 2nd degree vs. manslaughter, the difference is, What was in the mind of the person who killed the other person? Did they plan the murder? Was it an accident? Was it spontaneous? Were they in a rage or were they cold and calculated? And so forth.

In "death matches," the "intent" of both people participating is clear--to destroy the other person. If the intent is to kill another human being in cold blood, then that is murder. No two ways about it and no way to argue around it.

Now, grant you, the people that are advocating legalized "death matches" probably don't care if murder is legalized (more so than it already is....) Perhaps the thread should have just baldly asked, "Should adults be allowed, in the name of freedom, to murder other people?" and, if it had been so stated, I get the feeling that a few people would be saying, "yes."

But don't try to argue that a person has the "right to die in the manner he or she desires" and that death matches should thus be legalized. Death matches are not about suicide and no one here is arguing against suicide, assisted or not.

WWFStern

November 6, 2006, 11:17 PM

Once again, some people seem to think that "death matches" are about suicide, or people "choosing to extinguish their lives themselves." But, as someone else has also noted, that's not what "death matches" are about--they are about killing the other person, not about allowing yourself to be killed! Each person is going into the match thinking/wanting/hoping to survive. Therefore, their mindset is "kill that person."

Murder is about intent. When someone is convicted of 1st degree murder vs 2nd degree vs. manslaughter, the difference is, What was in the mind of the person who killed the other person? Did they plan the murder? Was it an accident? Was it spontaneous? Were they in a rage or were they cold and calculated? And so forth.

In "death matches," the "intent" of both people participating is clear--to destroy the other person. If the intent is to kill another human being in cold blood, then that is murder. No two ways about it and no way to argue around it.

Now, grant you, the people that are advocating legalized "death matches" probably don't care if murder is legalized (more so than it already is....) Perhaps the thread should have just baldly asked, "Should adults be allowed, in the name of freedom, to murder other people?" and, if it had been so stated, I get the feeling that a few people would be saying, "yes."

But don't try to argue that a person has the "right to die in the manner he or she desires" and that death matches should thus be legalized. Death matches are not about suicide and no one here is arguing against suicide, assisted or not.

We already established that consent to enter a death match is mandatory. If you consent to participate, then dying at the hands of your competitor is analogous to suicide. You signed your life away by signing the contract for a death match.

Castorama

November 7, 2006, 12:01 AM

JamesBannon:Liberty is certainly important but to argue that it is the only thing that is of absolute importance in moral terms is just plain crazy.Why?

Another thing, assisted suicide is an entirely different situation with no parallel to a death match. In a death match, death is not the aim, life is.Why should I not be allowed to consent to this different form of death? Assuming that I can pull out for as long as I am able to express my will to, why not?

There is only one rule in a death match (or in war): be alive at the end of it.Is there only one rule in a game of soccer? I.e. score more goals than the opposition? Your idea of what constitutes a rule, is one hell of a rhetorical mess.

To imagine that we can invent rules to be sure that a death match is "fair" is just as insane as imagining that we can invent rules to make war fair.Why?

Tao of Pooh

November 7, 2006, 04:12 AM

Rules? But as I asked earlier. what if they are broken? The person breaking them can claim self-defence if it comes to law. The other guy was trying to kill him after all.

And as with any other sporting event when rules are broken then penalties would be imposed. "Self-defense" could hardly be used as an excuse for rule-breaking in a deathmatch, defending yourself would be an expected part of the match.
I'm not going to get bogged down here with a minutia (?) discussion about what rules/regulations there would be in legalized deathmatches.
I see no problem with legalized & regulated deathmatches as a spectator sport.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Tao of Pooh

November 7, 2006, 04:25 AM

We already established that consent to enter a death match is mandatory. If you consent to participate, then dying at the hands of your competitor is analogous to suicide. You signed your life away by signing the contract for a death match.

So any/every soldier, police officer and firefighter who dies on the job committed suicide? Those are by their very nature dangerous jobs and come with a high possiblility of death.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

JamesBannon

November 7, 2006, 08:36 AM

In "death matches," the "intent" of both people participating is clear--to destroy the other person. If the intent is to kill another human being in cold blood, then that is murder. No two ways about it and no way to argue around it.
Precisely!

RenegadeOfPhunk

November 7, 2006, 04:50 PM

Could someone tackle the fast food point I made earlier please?
There is 'consensual' murder going on every day in our 'civilised' society. And yet we don't bat an eyelid because it isn't as 'obvious' as a consensual death-match...

ZikZak

November 7, 2006, 05:49 PM

An interesting aside here is the ancient Aztec sport of Tlachtli, a predecessor of basketball, in which the losing team was at least occasionally beheaded in a ritual manner, as required apparently by Aztec religion. It's unclear whether the players in such high stakes games were prisoners forced to play or made the free choice to do so, or perhaps it depended.

Assuming the choice is freely made and concent is given in advance of the game, is there any difference ethically or morally between Tlachtli and a death match? What if your religion requires it?

Unbeatable

November 7, 2006, 06:35 PM

Could someone tackle the fast food point I made earlier please?

Hopefully not. That's another can of worms that warrants its own thread. In fact, I'm going to start a poll on that right now.

There is 'consensual' murder going on every day in our 'civilised' society.

Well, okay, if you agree that this requires you to expand the definition of murder now to include selling people unhealthy food which contributes indirectly (alongside other variables which aren't under the control of fast food peddlers) to the probability that they will die due to health problems.

Autonemesis

November 7, 2006, 06:49 PM

That your philosophy can't find any reason to ban nonconsensual death matches even if we legalize dueling is a great reason to oppose it on principle.

My philosophy is humanistic. I have no problem finding a basis within it to condemn death matches, consensual or not. It is Libertarianism that cannot find any reason to ban nonconsensual death matches. Note that I said "If I accept that consensual death matches are permissible...". But I do not, so you can't be talking to me. Ask the Libertarians who think death matches should be permitted why they elevate consent above life. Now consider if the fighter withdraws consent in the middle of the fight, the Libertarian has a philosophical dilemma. He must choose to either (a) elevate consent in the present above contractual agreements in the past or (b) elevate contractual agreements made in the past above consent in the present. But what if the contract to enter the death match was coerced? The practical problem is that someone is dead before the disagreements about who consented to what and when can be litigated.

Autonemesis

November 7, 2006, 07:01 PM

Participants would not be eligable for health care outside that which they(Or a sponsor perhaps) can pay themselves.

Your bio says you're in Norway, can I assume you're a citizen? How can you justify not providing health care to the participants? Are there any other classes of people in Norway who are denied access to public health care based on behavior which led to their injury? Do you want to deny health care to the participants because the activity is not legitimate in some way? Then why allow it at all? There seems to be an inconsistency in your position, if I can assume you are in favor of your country's national health care program.

Autonemesis

November 7, 2006, 07:12 PM

Libertarianism is the proper philosophy for relativists such as myself. In that philosophy, we each are allowed to form our own opinions with regard to those matters, and can escape the displeasure of having somebody else's standards inflicted upon us.

No, you cannot escape that by adopting any philosophy. In order to escape the displeasure of having somebody else's standards inflicted on you, you must convince them to respect your values and decisions. Making arguments in favor of death matches is a laughably inept way to go about persuading others to respect your values.

Your opinions with regard to rights and ownership aren't particularly relevant strictly with respect to my life and my body.

That's very persuasive. You're gonna get so much respect for your opinions with that line of argument. Have fun preserving these rights of yours all by yourself.

ZikZak

November 7, 2006, 09:43 PM

Ask the Libertarians who think death matches should be permitted why they elevate consent above life.

1. Because liberty is more important than life. Or did all those who fought and died for our liberty today make an immoral choice in doing so? Would you censure George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for condoning and executing the war of independence on priority-of-life grounds?

2. Because life is more than just a pulse beat. Life is what you make of it. And it takes all types. If competing in death matches makes the competitors happy, then that is more important than their mere (otherwise unhappy) biological function.

3. Because elevating life, regardless of the quality thereof, to the highest possible priority results in ludicrous and outrageous behavior, such as forbidding the terminally ill from ending their lives with dignity.

4. Because I own my body, not you and definitely not the government, and I will do whatever I damn well please with it whenever it suits me to do so. Certainly that is the most central liberty of all: to have sovreignty over one's own body. And thus I must yield this same authority to every person who owns their bodies to do with them just as they please, short of harming nonconsenting others.

Unbeatable

November 7, 2006, 09:59 PM

That's very persuasive. You're gonna get so much respect for your opinions with that line of argument. Have fun preserving these rights of yours all by yourself.

I don't think it's meant to be persuasive in that way. It's just an opinion. You'll know when a libertarian is actually trying to convince you not to force your standards on them, because that's when they'll start talking about defending themselves with guns. It might take a few more pages of both sides of this debate restating their opinions at each other until that happens, though.

Raza

November 7, 2006, 10:39 PM

Yeah, ever heard of humanism? I dismissed your idea based on that. It's inhumane to allow people to kill each other for sport.
You didn't dismiss it based on anything, you simply stated that the question was 'poison' and any philosophy that would have you ask it was to be opposed on principle. Relativism has you ask questions before you dismis the conclusions, so that means you oppose relatvisim on principle.

Whether you're a humanist has very little to do with that, really.

Who said it did? If we permit death matches, why limit them to consensual death matches? Why elevate preserving consent above preserving life? If I were to accept that death matches are permissible, I cannot find any reason to limit them to consensual death matches.
The value of human life exists only because a living human is able to think, choose and act. Without those qualities, it's no different from the life of a plant, which we don't value much at all. The life is valueable because the living human wants it, has the ability to want it. If the human does not want it, what value does it have? It cannot be given to someone who does want it, we don't have the means to do that.

We elevate consent above life because in elevating consent, life is automatically held high as well where it has value.

Bomb#20

November 8, 2006, 02:35 AM

In my mind, only acts that cause harm to nonconsenting others should be criminalized. Otherwise, we'd be passing laws and applying force to people simply because of the "ick" factor.
What makes "harm to nonconsenting others, ick factor" a complete list of all possible reasons for passing laws? Take the examples in my last post. Should it be legal to not pay taxes? Should it be legal to ignore a subpoena? If you do those things you're not hurting anyone; but you're not helping either, and the law currently requires you to help in these cases. It doesn't require you to help because not helping is icky, but because the community needs your services so you're being drafted. Do you disapprove? Would it be better to get rid of the fire department? Would it be better to lock up somebody who's innocent just because the guy who knows she was elsewhere during the crime doesn't feel like testifying?

Bomb#20

November 8, 2006, 02:57 AM

My philosophy is humanistic. I have no problem finding a basis within it to condemn death matches, consensual or not. It is Libertarianism that cannot find any reason to ban nonconsensual death matches. Note that I said "If I accept that consensual death matches are permissible...". But I do not, so you can't be talking to me.
Dude, you appear to have completely missed my point. Of course I'm talking to you. I suggest you go read my post again, and reread the post you wrote that I was replying to, and study the parallels. If that doesn't help you understand what I was getting at, I'll spell it out in detail when I'm not as short on time.

Also, how about if you tell us what humanism can find reasons for; we'll rely on Libertarians to tell us what Libertarianism can find reasons for.

ZikZak

November 8, 2006, 02:58 AM

What makes "harm to nonconsenting others, ick factor" a complete list of all possible reasons for passing laws?

It isn't. But it is pretty well complete for the question at hand: death matches.

I have no problems paying taxes to support the legitimate functions of government which include resolutions of disputes between individuals such that there is no need for individuals to resort to self-help. In order to serve this function, it is necessary to compel coorperation with the court system. A necessary evil. I certainly have no problems with fire departments; I have no idea where I might have said anything against the government protecting its citizens from imminent danger.

RenegadeOfPhunk

November 8, 2006, 05:41 AM

Well, okay, if you agree that this requires you to expand the definition of murder now to include selling people unhealthy food which contributes indirectly (alongside other variables which aren't under the control of fast food peddlers) to the probability that they will die due to health problems.

Well, considering the definition of 'murder':

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

I think it's 1 and 5 that we are concerned with here.
1 is basically saying, 'murder is whatever the law says it is'. So that's hardly an objective definition.

...which leaves 5:

'to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously'.

So, the only questions to answer is whether I consider:

a. McDonalds responsible for the content of it's own food (I do).
b. The content of said food (and other fast food companies of a similar vein) to be a 'major contributor' to one of the biggest avoidable killers in the western world - obesity.
c. Such action to be 'inhumane' or 'barbarous'. (I beleive it is both).

So no, I have no problem calling McDonalds, tobacco companies, alchohol companies and any other company that produces an unnessesary product that helps to kill us on a mass scale - collectively 'murderers'.
And apparently it doesn't matter that we all consent to eat fast food, smoke and drink. Becuse consent doesn't matter - right?

Bomb#20

November 10, 2006, 04:41 AM

What makes "harm to nonconsenting others, ick factor" a complete list of all possible reasons for passing laws?
It isn't. But it is pretty well complete for the question at hand: death matches.
How do you know? We've established that the rule you were proposing isn't right in general, so what makes you think it's right in this case? Historically, European governments passed laws against dueling because it was decimating their army officer populations. That's not on your list. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that there might be some modern reason to ban them that's equally non-ick-related.

In order to serve this function, it is necessary to compel coorperation... A necessary evil. I certainly have no problems with fire departments; I have no idea where I might have said anything against the government protecting its citizens from imminent danger.
You didn't; you merely said something that conflicted with taxation, and thus with the government having the resources to do what you approve of it doing. My point was that since, as I correctly assumed, you approve of the government protecting its citizens, you must approve of taxing people. So you approve of criminalizing an act that causes no harm to nonconsenting others; and this is not because that act seems icky to you. So your proposed rule,only acts that cause harm to nonconsenting others should be criminalized. Otherwise, we'd be passing laws and applying force to people simply because of the "ick" factor.isn't correct. And you can't base an argument against banning death-matches on an incorrect rule.

Coooolo70

November 10, 2006, 11:38 AM

we have to assume

lol you should never assume things... you have that totally backward. you should never assume there is something unless you know there is.

Morgana

November 10, 2006, 04:48 PM

Bringing up possible mental illness and other mitigating factors is a red herring.Ok, fine, for the sake of argument I will grant that you can perfectly detect whether people are free of mental illness or coercion and are making a rational choice to engage in deathmatch.

Suppose there are no detectable factors that would cause you to consider the participants incompetent to give consent. Suppose that as far as you can tell, the two participants are mentally healthy, not goaded by peer pressure, etc. In this hypothetical scenario, assume that the situation really is as sanitized as the OP suggests, if not more so. Should they be allowed to have a deathmatch?I would propose that anyone who should be legally allowed to commit suicide should be allowed to engage in deathmatch. Consider it attempted suicide. People who are considering suicide often do things that have an elevated probability of killing them rather than going for surefire methods.

If you don't think so, then tell me why intelligent, consenting, competent people, in the absence of any external pressures, shouldn't be allowed to have a deathmatch.Well, the main reason is the one I gave you as a freebie above. However, in purely practical terms, it is a waste of resources. Intelligent competent people who kill themselves are wasting the efforts of society to bring them up as intelligent competent people. They also leave their dependents without support.

David Vestal

November 10, 2006, 11:31 PM

I would propose that anyone who should be legally allowed to commit suicide should be allowed to engage in deathmatch.

Then you seem to have no qualm with deathmatches as such, but think that external factors should disqualify some people from participating. That's pretty much been my position since the beginning of the thread.

Unless, of course, you're being clever, and don't think people should be legally allowed to commit suicide.

Well, the main reason is the one I gave you as a freebie above.

As far as I can tell, you didn't give a reason above why "intelligent, consenting, competent people, in the absence of any external pressures, shouldn't be allowed to have a deathmatch." In fact, you seemed to state state an opinion that they should be allowed.

However, in purely practical terms, it is a waste of resources.

Perhaps, but that's not really relevant, is it? In practical terms, lots of acceptable activities are a waste of resources. Trying to bake the world's largest cookie, for instance.

Intelligent competent people who kill themselves are wasting the efforts of society to bring them up as intelligent competent people. They also leave their dependents without support.

Dependents are "external pressures," and as such violate the hypothetical.

Bomb#20

November 11, 2006, 07:25 PM

Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that there might be somewe have to assumelol you should never assume things... you have that totally backward. you should never assume there is something unless you know there is.
Nice snippage. Care to reread what I wrote, reexamine what you misrepresented it as, and rethink your position?

Coooolo70

November 11, 2006, 10:10 PM

Nice snippage. Care to reread what I wrote, reexamine what you misrepresented it as, and rethink your position?

*re-reads*

*keeps position*

you say you have to assume something exists...

'nothing should be assumed to exist in the universe than absolutely nessecary'

Bomb#20

November 12, 2006, 02:00 AM

*re-reads*
*keeps position*
Wow.

you say you have to assume something exists...
:rolleyes:
I said nothing of the sort. Exactly which part of "there might be" don't you understand? [Emphasis added to draw your attention to a critical word.]

'nothing should be assumed to exist in the universe than absolutely nessecary'
I assumed your eyes existed. I assumed your fluency in English existed. I assumed your ability to set aside what you originally thought I meant when notified that you'd gotten it wrong and instead think about the actual words on your actual computer screen existed. In which of these assumptions did I go wrong?

Coooolo70

November 13, 2006, 03:58 AM

Wow.

:rolleyes:
I said nothing of the sort. Exactly which part of "there might be" don't you understand? [Emphasis added to draw your attention to a critical word.]

I assumed your eyes existed. I assumed your fluency in English existed. I assumed your ability to set aside what you originally thought I meant when notified that you'd gotten it wrong and instead think about the actual words on your actual computer screen existed. In which of these assumptions did I go wrong?

i wasn't wrong lol, you deny what you yourself typed.

i might not have eyes. you wouldn't know so shouldn't say otherwise.

How do you know? We've established that the rule you were proposing isn't right in general, so what makes you think it's right in this case? Historically, European governments passed laws against dueling because it was decimating their army officer populations. That's not on your list. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that there might be some modern reason to ban them that's equally non-ick-related.

here you are saying that you have to prove something doesn't exist in order for it to not. yet you provide no such modern reason. you are assuming something which you have no proof of...

Bomb#20

November 14, 2006, 05:33 AM

i wasn't wrong lol, you deny what you yourself typed.
I really have no interest in helping you repeatedly make a fool of yourself, so I think this will be my last attempt to get you to understand the mistake you're making. Your claims about what I typed do not match what I typed. I'm mystified as to why you think they do. You seem to be genuinely unable to tell the difference between what I said:we have to assume that there might be some X.and what you persist in imagining I said:we have to assume that there is some X.
Why are you unable to tell those apart? One has an "is" where the other has a "might be". Do you think you can make that difference go away if you just pretend it isn't there enough times? Is English perhaps not your mother tongue? You seem quite fluent in most respects, but you have a gaping hole in your reading comprehension. If you're a native English speaker, did the people you learned English from just never use hypothetical terms like "might" and "could"?

Here are your false representations of my words:"you should never assume there is something"
"you say you have to assume something exists"
As you can see, when you tried to paraphrase me, you changed what I wrote to "there is" and "something exists". Those aren't what I said. I said "there might be". "There might be" doesn't mean "there is". They mean two completely different things. That's why English provides different words for the different meanings. What I wrote means "something might exist", not "something exists".

i might not have eyes. you wouldn't know so shouldn't say otherwise.
I didn't say otherwise. "I assumed X. Did I go wrong?" does not mean "X is true".

Incidentally, your sentence shows you do know what "might" means, well enough to use it correctly. So why don't you understand it when somebody else uses it?

Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that there might be some modern reason...
here you are saying that you have to prove something doesn't exist in order for it to not.
No. That's not what those words mean. If you think they mean that, you learned English wrong. Don't take my word for it. Go find a native English speaker you respect and ask him.

What I was saying there is that you have to prove something doesn't exist in order for you to know that it does not. This was the point of my argument to the previous poster. When you assume a thing might exist, you are admitting your ignorance. When you assume it definitely does not exist, you're still ignorant; you're just in denial about it. By claiming something didn't exist even though he had no evidence against its existence, he was claiming knowledge he didn't have. Is that something you're in favor of?

yet you provide no such modern reason. you are assuming something which you have no proof of...
:banghead:
But I'm not assuming a modern reason. Maybe there is one and maybe there isn't. I don't know. That's what "there might be" means!