kobe wrote:The fact that you admit the state has a right to establish its own conduct based on its monopoly on violence is a good starting point for this discussion though. As no non-aggression principle has ever been put into practice, we only have our practical considerations, which are based on the historical application of the dueling system. Historically, it has been a corrupt institution that has been successfully reformed by its removal. Given that the elimination of the system produced overwhelmingly positive outcomes while the system itself produced overwhelmingly negative outcomes, we can see why it was eliminated and why we should not bring it back.
We are arguing about different things. I admitted before that historically the institution of dueling was not as fair as it should have been, and that arguments should be resolved in different, preferably non-violent ways. What I tried to say is that philosophically the state lacks the moral foundation. And like you said, there's no universal moral principles, but I was not talking about that. I started from and individualistic basis: if there are two adults who consensually agree on a terms of a duel, there's no coercion. If there's no coercion, and both parties acknowledge the possible consequences, I fail to see the moral basis which upon the state intervines in a private problem resolving of two people.
kobe wrote:edit: Oh ya, one last point: I fail to see how telling someone "I want to kill you because of a perfectly legal action you took that insulted my honor" is not in itself a violation of the non-aggression principle. After all, it is still a threat of physical violence, which is legally assault since you intend to back it up.
Is it? The keyword in consent. If the other person doesn't agree but there is still lethal violence, then it is a murder, not a duel.
I'm not saying dueling is something good. I don't even think it should be legalized because it would lead to things Harmattan described earlier.I think that the
concept of a duel is based on consent and as such, the state has no moral legitimacy to intervine. (In this case, a duel is like consensual sex, and a murder is like rape. Pretty different.) However, I do not argue that in practice, duels were not what they are meant to be, and it was maybe even good to outlaw dueling. But what can be good from a practical viewpoint can be still philosophically illegitimate.
(I hope that made sense, honestly I'm starting to get confused but maybe just because English is not my native language)