Demea wrote:
Sogoro the Irrelevant wrote:
Demea wrote:
Autonomy vs. Morality of Killing.
Autonomy wins in this case.
How so?
Basically, the fact that both both participants are willing and accepting of the terms means that they are prepared to die, if it's a duel to the death. This acceptance exempts them from any kind of moral obligation not to kill. To say that killing is wrong is fairly universal, but if your opponent is prepared to die, then they have consciously waived their right to life.
The big question then becomes; do people have the right to disregard their own right to life? It's very similar to the euthanasia debate, although on different grounds. In the end, to deny someone the ability to decide what they do with their life is a violation of their basic right of autonomy.
This reminds me of Jet Li's Fearless. Good movie, ******* duel fights. I think the debate lies heavily on "is it morally right to allow people to fight to the death."
Boxing and whatnot are fights until someone goes unconcious, but they do have to sign a contract that says their life might be taken away.
When I go paint balling I've had to sign wavers saying that I might be killed and the field owner isn't liable for your death.
Theres many events, so to speak, where theres a chance of death where you have to sign off on.
I think another big issue is body disposal...Would the killer have to pay for it , would the state have to, or would the family of the deceased have to?
However, if this were legal, you would probably have to pay the government money to do so.
