args

Dueling should be legalized

My opponent insists on the fact that I've contradicted myself on the definition of state. She argues that people don't actually agree to having a state, but comply to it to avoid negative consequences. This consequences can in fact occur if someone openly challenges law and order, but it's because the agreement refers to a sound majority, not to one or two individuals. Take for example Cheran, a little town in Michoacan, Mexico. Here, the majority of the people didn't agree to the state, government and laws, so they overthew the local governments and have established an "anarchist" model. If this should happen to a large scale, the agreement would effectively break. The fact that people vote, work, pay taxes and continue with their lives (at least the majority) means they agree to having a state. Utilitarianism Again, I am not arguing in favor of an utilitarian state or for utilitarianism as the ultimate system of justice. Like my opponent said, I admit the flaws of pure utilitarianism and agree to the fact that it cannot be applied in every case. I am using an utilitarian approach for dueling and its legality (if this debate was about another topic, maybe utilitarianism had a moral deficiency which would render it not viable). However, this is not the case and I think I've demonstrated that dueling is not convinient under such approach. Moreover, I've demonstrated there is no immorality or injustice in judging this issue under utilitarianism. The benefits it produces to society are a valid way to decide on the legality of an issue, as long as higher values are not compromised. In this case, higher values are not compromised, on the contrary, my other approach (aretaic ethics) shows how it's virtuous to keep dueling illegal. Non-Aggression Principle I'm sorry I didn't address the Non-Aggression Principle in the last round, I was running out of space. The NAP is an incomplete principle and it should not be taken as a valid normative of law. The NAP basically works so that the action is not unjust, which is fine, but completely neglects important factors like virtue, human value or benefits. The fact that legalized dueling does not break the Non-Aggression Principle is barely a good enough reason to make it legal. I retake my seat belt example; it doesn't break the NAP but governments still value human life enough to fine those who attempt against it. It's the same case with some self-destructing drugs. I stand the NAP alone is incomplete and therefore an insufficient system of legality. Aretaic Ethics My opponent noted a contradiction, and maybe it is my fault for being so vague in defining my arguments. I apologize for this. I said there is no specific way to determine the goodness or badness in actions. This is to say you cannot take any action and consult a chart or something similar that tells you its moral value. However, moral value can usually be determined with much objectivity. In the case of killing, the moral value of the action is beyond obvious and rises from the premise that life is the basic unit of society, meaning its protection is the virtuous choice. My opponent keeps mixing up the two normatives I proposed to consider the legality of dueling. They are independent from one another, and the purpose is to show both are, separately, successful against her dueling case. Why is this posture important? Because ethics is the inherent knowledge about good and bad that us humans have and, for obvious reasons, we must advance and model our system towards the good. My opponent also added: "He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death. Very very very few fights (a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight) start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial. " I didn't address her "not all duels are to death" declaration because I find it irrelevant as long as some duels are to the death. That's like saying "let's allow drunk driving because not all cases of drunk driving result in accidents." Whenever discussing legality, the worst possible consequence has to be considered, it is absurd to do otherwise. If at least one duel can end in death, it has to be taken as if every duel would end up in death, there is no middle ground. Dueling bad Here, my opponent tries to invalidate my position with heavy talk but does little more than to go through the issues already discussed. First, my opponent discarded utilitarianism and said that advantages vs. disadvantages were irrelevant. She gives but three advantages (as compared to the seven disadvantages I mentioned) and rules mine irrelevant advocating for the NAP. I had not discussed NAP at that point but I have now, and I declare it as insufficient as she declares utilitarianism. Human value is inherent, I believe that was settled. I already explained in one of the previous sections the reasoning for virtue to be in defense of life. My opponent claims my position values humans beings as a mean and not as an end. This is false, just because I used utilitarianism it does not mean I believe human life to be of lesser value. Again, I was not advocating to a utilitarian "worldview" but to a utilitarian approach to this case. There might be other cases where util. enters in direct conflict with ethics and moral and then I would not consider it a viable normative. Finally, my opponent claims she's established dueling as a basic right, under the weak and incomplete NAP. I already refuted NAP and since my opponent failed to give a stronger normative, it's status as a right is not settled. Her three advantages, out of which only one was conceded, don't make a utilitarian case in her favor. I maintain dueling should not be a right and the reasons I used to support it are still valid.