args

Dueling should be legalized

First of all, I am glad to be able to debate this interesting topic against such an experienced debater, I hope it's a good debate. My opponent stated: "II. We can only assess what should/should not be legal when operating a under a compelling framework that provides proper justification for the existence of the state. For this reason, my main contention will be that dueling should be legal because states exist to protect rights. " I consider the final sentence is too broad when it comes to defining the purpose of the state. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws. [1] So, by this definition, the state not only exists to protect rights but to establish order and security in a given society. More than a simple purveyor of rights, the state is the entity in that ensures the well-being of its people. Accompanied by this idea, philosophy of law has evolved throughout history to the point we can no longer synthesise the role of the state solely in the defense of freedom. My opponent stated: "Dueling is a right" My opponent declares that dueling is a right because free will entitles people to consensual dueling. This is true if examined strictly from a deontological viewpoint of law. Deontology is the view that the laws should protect individual autonomy, liberty, or rights. [2] However, my opponent falls in the mistake of taking this normative of law as the only and correct normative of law, when it's clear society is moving from the defense of free-will towards the defense of virtue. Take for example prostitution; a consensual exchange of money for sexual services. It's deemed illegal in many states, because other factors like exploitation, inequality, gender roles, ethics, morality and social costs and benefits are considered. Now that we've settled the "free will" approach is not the only approach to consider legality, I will discuss other approaches. Utilitarianism is the view that the laws should be crafted so as to produce the best consequences. [3] According to utilitarianism, it is evident that dueling should not be permitted. Human life is the basis of society, so it should be in the best interest of the state to protect it. Life is obviously the better consequence over death. Lets observe several ways in which the legalization of dueling enters in conflict with the utilitarian theory of law: Life is a preferable consequence over death in a society that values the human being as its basic unit. The winner of the duel gets the psychological burden of committing homicide. [4] A clean conscience is a preferable consequence over a psychological burden. The loser of the duel dies, meaning he or she can no longer pay taxes, contribute to the labor force, raise a family, etc. Having more people is preferable, unless we are faced with the problem of over population (which never justifies ending lives). If killing a person becomes legal, the mere act of homicide becomes socially accepted. This is a fact, we can see an illegal drug like marijuana being frowned upon by society while equally dangerous drugs are considered acceptable because of their legal status. A society that rejects homicide is a preferable consequence over a society that accepts it. Family and loved ones of the duel's loser are left with feelings of anguish and maybe even desire for revenge. This is, again, a less favorable consequence. If dueling is not properly controlled, it can be used as an excuse to commit murder. The same way as murderers sometimes claim self-defense, they can claim they were dueling against their victims and even get free if the process is not strictly controlled. Legislations and institutions for regulating duels cost money to the state. It is preferable to spend money on preventing deaths rather than promoting them. Aretaic moral theories such as contemporary virtue ethics emphasize the role of character in morality. Virtue jurisprudence is the view that the laws should promote the development of virtuous characters by citizens. [5] Here the result is even more evident. It is of lesser virtue to kill than not to kill. Killing other humans goes against nature and against ethics. We are supposed to be moving towards a post-conventional society (morally speaking). It wouldn't be convenient to go back to a pseudo-barbarian state where killing is justified by feelings like anger, wrath or even honor, with all virtue neglected. According to modern conflict theories, conflict will always exist, so the state should promote virtuous solutions like dialogue instead of fostering violent solutions. Now, my opponent also noted some "advantages" for the legalization of dueling. Let us go deeper: "Advantage one: Legitimitizing dueling could cut down on other acts of violence" I think both, my opponent and I, have insufficient information to make such a claim. It is not safe to assume dueling will replace street fights to some extent. We have to first know the demographics of these street fighters. Are they people interested in legality and honor more than they are in making damage? Prior to the debate, we agreed that the steps in order for the duel to be legitimate would not be taken into consideration, but since we are talking about legalized homicide one must speculate some kind of control is taken before the duel (to ensure its legality). Having said this, we cannot assume the average street fighter would choose to go through the complications of scheduling a duel rather than just fighting. Additionally, who can assure legal dueling will stop people from seeking vengeance after someone is killed? I personally consider too many assumptions have to be made for this claim to even be considered. "Advantage two: Promotes a sense of honor. " While it is true, it also brings dishonor into the value system of society. Moreover, it brings forward a choice that people normally don't have to face: Death or Dishonor? Both are undesirable choices, for it is obvious people would like to avoid both. We have to consider the social repercussion for a person who, thinking about his life and family, declines a duel. It is not fair that the state endorses a person to sentence another to or a life of cowardice and social disapproval. "Advantage three: Supports governments proper purpose" This is only true if you limit the governments' purpose only to granting rights. If we consider a government that must protect common interest, virtue and human value, legalizing dueling does not serve a proper purpose. Finally, I absolutely agree with my opponent when it comes to the state's role in protecting certain rights. Human rights, for example, are considered vital in any society and any form of government must protect them. However, when we discuss the right of two human beings to kill each other, I think it ought to be reconsidered. Do we really want to go back to a society were people can just lose control and decide to legally kill one another? We should seek for a government that protects us from emotion-driven action, serving as a voice of reason. The day human beings are allowed and encouraged to answer recklessly to their emotions, that is the day when the state really fails. Sources: [1] http://www.britannica.com... [2], [3], [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.killology.com...