Dueling should be legalized

Thanks for your thought-provoking arguments. I take no issue with any of the definitions you've added, thanks for the clarification. Now on to my rebuttals... ==Rebuttal: Dueling is Counter to the State's Interest in the Preservation of Sapient Life== --Rebuttal: On Social Good and the Preservation of Sapient Life-- Concerning your argument in regards to preservation of life and how individual contributions impact society as a whole, I would argue that this reduces human beings to machines without personal interests and ignores individual rights. If taken to its logical conclusion it could be used to justify any number of violations of personal autonomy on behalf of the state for the benefit of the collective. Further, one could apply that argument to actually be in favour of legalizing dueling, so long as the casualties of dueling are considered to have an overall negative impact on society. And if, as you suggest, duration of life is an important aspect of quality of life, and quality of life is something the state should pursue at the expense of individual rights, then the sort of individual who would willingly engage in a duel is willing to produce a negative effect on society and therefore duelists killing one another would be ridding society of negative influencers. --Rebuttal: On Suicide and Self-Harm-- You wrote that "if we disallow suicide and self-harm for this reason, then by extension we must also disallow dueling, which has an identical effect save for it being assisted by a third party." This might have been a compelling line of argument except for the fact that, contrary to your implication, suicide itself is legal in the majority of liberal democracies, including (but not limited to) the US, Canada, Australia, England, Germany (1). Now, I understand that alternatively you could have been referencing mental health related laws permitting suicide prevention by authorities and forcible hospitalization of actively suicidal patients. But I would respond that there is a fundamental difference between intervention when someone is not of sound mind and is unable to make rational, autonomous decisions, and premeditated decisions in which an individual is fully cognizant of the consequences of their actions. Increasingly, legal systems in liberal democracies seem to be recognizing that as well, as in recent years there has been increasing legalization of assisted suicide globally (2). ==Rebuttal: Dueling is Unusually Vulnerable to Exploitation Against Personal Interest via Undue Influence== I'm glad you brought up emotionally compromised states and legal contracts. Because it is actually a function of, and a defense of, dueling that it would require affirmative consent and a legal contract to undertake. This would mean duress (3), undue influence (3), unconscionably (4) and other defenses in contract law would apply. Parties would have to go through the process of obtaining and signing contracts and could be held criminally and civilly liable if they injured or killed an opponent in a duel under a contract that was found to be inequitable. Therefore, both parties have an interest in ensuring they both enter the duel in a condition of sound mind and in a voluntary fashion. The process of having to do this would also constitute a "cooling off" period in which participants can let initial emotions subside to an extent and properly determine whether they want to commit to the course of action. Dueling is intended to settle grudges and grievances, but they are conducted under controlled circumstances in accordance with rules and are not heat-of-the-moment street fights. Where "entrapment" potential against skilled duelists is concerned, a contract formation period would give the other party a chance to research their opponent and determine if they want to withdraw on the basis of being over-matched (albeit with a loss of face). Legalized dueling accompanied by a proper contract system and enforcement would also enable the rise of "professional duelists" who could be hired to duel skilled duelists with histories of provoking people. Eventually it would be would prove dangerous to go around trying to provoke people into dueling, regardless of one's skill level. If anything, legalized dueling would provide a process and safeguards that would serve as an alternative to more reactive and ill-conceived expressions of violence. ==Rebuttal: Dueling, Unlike "Safe" Methods of Conflict, Inflicts Egregious Externalities on Interested Parties== This goes back to the initial argument on social good and the preservation of sapient life. I reject the argument that debts and personal obligations to third parties obligate a human being to take every possible step to preserve their own existence at the expense of personal autonomy. I'll note that this same argument could be applied to a range of dangerous lifestyle activities (I provided examples in my opening so I'll refer readers back to them instead of repeating them). If one is to apply this logic to dueling, could they not apply it to arguing that the state should forcibly impose specific dietary and exercise programs on the populace, while denying the right to engage in lifestyle choices that are arguably harmful? At what point do these impositions that are supposed to improve "quality of life" end up infringing on personal autonomy to the point that quality of life is reduced as the population live under stressfully excessive restrictions on their freedom? ==Rebuttal: Initial Conclusion== (1) http://mentalhealthdaily.com... (2) http://medicalxpress.com... (3) http://www.inbrief.co.uk... (4) https://www.law.cornell.edu...