Bring back the traditional Duel

[Libido_Itch]

 I believe bringing back the European tradition of Dueling would benefit society immensely and should be exempt from the law.  Men had a more respectful and civil behavior toward one another; you defame ones character or honor, be prepared to put your life on it.  There would be less cowardly smart-asses for sure and bring back the warrior code of honor, so maybe..their would be less back-stabbing and other cowardly acts. 

[istaros]

Wasn't there a line Conan the Barbarian once said about how civilized people are, in effect, actually more barbaric because they no longer face consequences for rudeness to each other? I always find reversals of common conceptions like that very interesting. (Openness to) Brutality leads to civility. Seems to trace back nicely to the "only death is real" mentality too - remove the fear (in this case, an ongoing awareness more than a sudden fright) of death and you lose the love of life in turn, as expressed in how we behave towards one another.

[Wolfgang]

Interesting role reversal from the cyber duels of Modern Warfare II and similar games, where I am told the rudeness from small children is baffling...

[teutonicus]

Wasn't there a line Conan the Barbarian once said about how civilized people are, in effect, actually more barbaric because they no longer face consequences for rudeness to each other? I always find reversals of common conceptions like that very interesting. (Openness to) Brutality leads to civility. Seems to trace back nicely to the "only death is real" mentality too - remove the fear (in this case, an ongoing awareness more than a sudden fright) of death and you lose the love of life in turn, as expressed in how we behave towards one another.

Upon reading the OP, that line was the first thing which came to me as well =)

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
Robert E. Howard

Talk of duels makes me wonder about how law and order would be kept in a Hessian society. I think that duels, blood feuds and banishment would be enough to take care of most problems in a small community. Would laws even be needed if your people chased out all of the rapists and perverts?

[nothingnowhere]

Talk of duels makes me wonder about how law and order would be kept in a Hessian society. I think that duels, blood feuds and banishment would be enough to take care of most problems in a small community. Would laws even be needed if your people chased out all of the rapists and perverts?

It's interesting that in Western society of today, "justice" usually means punishing someone for doing something "bad".

It makes more sense to me that if someone commits a crime against another, something should be done to either make the situation right. For instance, if someone steals from another in the community, they should not only have to pay them back for what they have stolen, but also to give them something more (something like an animal). In the case of acts like murder, rape, or pedophilia, the offender should either be banished or executed, but not as a form of "punishing" them like a child, but simply as a means for the community to protect itself from further actions by a clearly deranged individual.

[Transcix]

The duel is a terrible idea, as honor and morality becomes based not on one's convictions and actions but upon one's success or failure in combat; the victor writes the history. Civility is a matter of using words before resulting to violence, and indeed often violence is totally unnecessary if one is skillful enough with words. I bet my life on everything I do, my doing often not amounting to more than words, and that I commit myself fully to what I do satisfies me, I don't need to prove it to anyone else with a show of bravado.

Talk of duels makes me wonder about how law and order would be kept in a Hessian society. I think that duels, blood feuds and banishment would be enough to take care of most problems in a small community. Would laws even be needed if your people chased out all of the rapists and perverts?

It's interesting that in Western society of today, "justice" usually means punishing someone for doing something "bad".

It makes more sense to me that if someone commits a crime against another, something should be done to either make the situation right. For instance, if someone steals from another in the community, they should not only have to pay them back for what they have stolen, but also to give them something more (something like an animal). In the case of acts like murder, rape, or pedophilia, the offender should either be banished or executed, but not as a form of "punishing" them like a child, but simply as a means for the community to protect itself from further actions by a clearly deranged individual.

Western society only punishes people as a deterrent. Morality and value systems inevitably figure into the equation in the sense of establishing degrees of criminality in order to determine sentence duration, but as far as I understand no judgment would be handed out were it not for the principle of deterrent. And so it should be, in the wise spirit of forgiveness and compassion, I'd say.

[Cargést]

The duel is a terrible idea, as honor and morality becomes based not on one's convictions and actions but upon one's success or failure in combat; the victor writes the history. Civility is a matter of using words before resulting to violence, and indeed often violence is totally unnecessary if one is skillful enough with words. I bet my life on everything I do, my doing often not amounting to more than words, and that I commit myself fully to what I do satisfies me, I don't need to prove it to anyone else with a show of bravado.

At this point, then, when someone proves, using words, that you are wrong in your statement, will you kill yourself?

[Transcix]

At this point, then, when someone proves, using words, that you are wrong in your statement, will you kill yourself?

Heh, that's a funny thought, but no. Maybe I'm not understanding too well the expression of betting one's life but for me it's a really safe bet I'm guaranteed never to lose. It's easy to bet your life, harder to stay alive! What I mean is I have to totally give my life to what I'm doing at the moment, and not try to guard it, and otherwise if I can't do this my life might as well be ended because I wouldn't want to go on. What I meant to convey is that I don't have a fear of death, in juxtaposition with how I don't seek death out, either. Using the possibility of death to leverage your life and things like honor is cheap, because death should be defining your life in the first place, not held at arm's length, plus if you use it as leverage like this then you don't accept it, you fear it because you acknowledge its possibility is negative.

[Cargést]

Perhaps, then, a duel to the death isn't the solution, but a duel nonetheless would certainly be a step in the right direction, don't you think?  If you're not willing to back up your convictions in the physical world, then don't air them to that physical world in the first place.

[Transcix]

Perhaps, then, a duel to the death isn't the solution, but a duel nonetheless would certainly be a step in the right direction, don't you think?  If you're not willing to back up your convictions in the physical world, then don't air them to that physical world in the first place.

I'm not sure what "direction" you think dueling may be a step towards, so I can't comment in that context. But obviously violence isn't, and moreover shouldn't be mandated as, the exclusive way to back up one's convictions. Besides, either (1) they convince me through reasoning that I'm wrong and I'm very happy to have made a new discovery, (2) I convince them through reasoning that they're wrong, (3) there's a failure of communication and we have to either work through it or determine it's not worth the trouble, (4) neither of our arguments is ironclad so we accept them both as hypotheses and agree to disagree, or (5) we're both right and just maintain conflicting views, in which case fighting over it will do nothing to make either view better than the other. Violence is good for attacking or defending but clearly it only distorts the logical process, it doesn't enhance it.

[Cargést]

I can still think of situations in which the understandings of you, the individuals arguing, are not all that is at stake.  It also seems to me that you're expecting people to aim to come into conflict with each other, one way or another, whereas this would be a system designed to inhibit discourtesy to others.

In the Viking age, duels were often fought not by the offender and the offended, but by selected "champions", who would take up the cause of either party and duel on their behalf.  In peace time, I could see this as being a good use to put soldiers to, aside from whatever other help they are to the society.  Conversely, "The goal of the honourable duel was often not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it".

Perhaps it's more a thing for a warlike society.  Being an advocate of warlike society, I advocate dueling as one means of righting wrongs, though by far not the only one.

[AnHero]

The purpose of the duel is not to replace civil, reasoned discussion. It is to encourage civil, reasoned discussion.

I'd prefer to work things out with words when possible, but what if the other party is not willing? What to do when he's being rude and refuses to stop - especially if his behavior is motivated by a bad mood, drunkenness or something else that inhibits civility?

The whole idea of the duel is that it creates a social atmosphere that discourages irrational behavior. One caveat - the concept couldn't be employed in a society where there wasn't already an understood standard of behavior. Most of ours don't have that.

[Transcix]

I can still think of situations in which the understandings of you, the individuals arguing, are not all that is at stake.  It also seems to me that you're expecting people to aim to come into conflict with each other, one way or another, whereas this would be a system designed to inhibit discourtesy to others.

In the Viking age, duels were often fought not by the offender and the offended, but by selected "champions", who would take up the cause of either party and duel on their behalf.  In peace time, I could see this as being a good use to put soldiers to, aside from whatever other help they are to the society.  Conversely, "The goal of the honourable duel was often not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it".

Perhaps it's more a thing for a warlike society.  Being an advocate of warlike society, I advocate dueling as one means of righting wrongs, though by far not the only one.

Hmmmm, then we're far apart in our respective paradigms, as in my view honor isn't something that can be so easily lost and found.

I'd prefer to work things out with words when possible, but what if the other party is not willing? What to do when he's being rude and refuses to stop - especially if his behavior is motivated by a bad mood, drunkenness or something else that inhibits civility.

Haha, poor you!

[AnHero]

I'd prefer to work things out with words when possible, but what if the other party is not willing? What to do when he's being rude and refuses to stop - especially if his behavior is motivated by a bad mood, drunkenness or something else that inhibits civility.

Haha, poor you!

Actually, I can't remember the last time I encountered such a situation. So this isn't a personal problem, as you implied. Do you have a real answer to my question?

[Transcix]

I'd prefer to work things out with words when possible, but what if the other party is not willing? What to do when he's being rude and refuses to stop - especially if his behavior is motivated by a bad mood, drunkenness or something else that inhibits civility.

Haha, poor you!

Actually, I can't remember the last time I encountered such a situation. So this isn't a personal problem, as you implied. Do you have a real answer to my question?

Well personally 99% of the time with words I can either make them feel stupid or badly about themselves, or I'd level with them until they respect me and either chill out or go pick on someone else; but often I don't have the time or I'm not in the mood so I just ignore the person, which is another way of handling it. Alternatively you could make a complaint to their authority (boss, parent, etc) or a public authority (police, government, etc). You could even get violent, but the violence wouldn't be regulated (and cheap shots would be allowed). These situations are always useful, if not in the heat of the moment then in retrospect, to learn about yourself and grow.

I didn't mean to imply you personally were faced with the problem, I just found it funny because I think a person being rude and refusing to stop is something very minor.