Posted on 08/06/2002 11:48:13 AM PDT by Tomalak
“But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.”
Edmund Burke, 1793
On British television recently, there was an advertisement for a beer. Set in the eighteenth century, it began by showing a pretty young woman sat in a carriage, looking on as the two men who seek her heart meet up in a field and bow before one another. Then, turning on their heels, they both walk towards their duelling positions. Except the duel doesn’t happen. After a few seconds, one of the duellers turns and shoots his opponent in the back. Along with a slogan like “Only the determined drink Andersons’ Beer”, the survivor is shown drinking the beer presented to him on a silver tray. And there it ends.
What interests me about that advertisement is that we are supposed to sympathise with the cheat. In a lovable rogue sort of way, we are expected to laugh at his shameful behaviour and to side with him. Duels and the honour that goes with them are so alien to us that we can see it only as a foreign custom, like a strange ritual of an African tribe. We appreciate that one of them has broken the rules, which is why the advert works, but we do not see it as a serious breach. The advert just wouldn’t work if it showed a football player pretending to be injured from a tackle, and I don’t think that is so much because football is not a matter of life and death. I think the reason it wouldn’t work is that however little someone may play football, we know the rules well enough to understand cheating, and we also have at least a degree of reverence for the game that would prevent us sympathising with a cheat who tried to wreck it. Yet so alien is the idea of an honourable duel that we can laugh and side with those who show no respect for its traditions and rules. Indeed, when the camera zooms in on the beer-drinking cheat, we see a very modern-looking, smug, twenty-first century face. It is us.
In a strange sort of way, then, this beer advert proves what Edmund Burke said was true two centuries ago. So lacking are we in that chivalry for which Burke pines that we cannot show any respect for its ways, and we side with those who use deceit and cheating to overcome those with honour.
Now, I might like to suggest that having murder laws drawn up in such a way as to criminalize duelling is a part of that. If we were to return to allowing men to make the choice freely to stake their lives on such a contest, that respect may matter more. Before turning to the practical implications of such a decision, I think it sensible to defend it in theory.
Liberal laws have for a long time been based upon the premise that a man should be free to do as he desires providing that what he does will not harm someone else directly. This is not to say that whatever he does is right, that all ways of life are equally valid, or anything else. It is simply asserting that the state should not decide these things for others; that its job is to protect the individual from the arbitrary will of others, not to choose the life he will lead. If one agrees with this - that freedom should be restricted only when it means violating the liberty of others – then one cannot believe in a ban on duelling. Yes, shooting a man most certainly does hurt him, but the loser made a voluntary decision to enter a duel: it was he who took the risk of injury, and that choice was his to make. Yes, it may hurt those close to a man to have their friend and relative die unnecessarily, but his decision to take that risk was again his own: any indirect hurt they feel is much greater than that we would all feel if forced to live in a society where no one could do anything if anyone else felt offended or hurt by it, however indirectly.
So in theory at least, duelling passes the central liberal test of being harmless to those who choose not to participate. Yes, those who do not take part in a duel may be upset at someone they love being shot, but that is not harm done directly to them any more than it is harmful to someone not to be the one chosen for a job, or not to be proposed to by someone they love.
But what of the practical implications? Here, I think, the case is strongest. Merely passing a philosophical test is insufficient to get me interested. If I saw no other argument for legalisation of duelling, I doubt I would support it. But because I believe it would work in practice in creating a better, more responsible, less violent society, I feel much more strongly about it. The violence we see in everyday society is a depressing and growing problem. It is clear that there have been a fair number of rather brutish young men in recent generations with no outlet for violent instincts. War provided this, but war is something imposed upon democracies by the enemies of liberty, not something anyone you or I would want to know desires in itself. This violence can be restricted by moral means, and by legal means. But churches and jails can only do so much. The problem generally is that violence against others seems to such people a fairly harmless bit of fun. Duelling, if made legal, would shift the scales for them dramatically.
Suddenly, every attack on someone, every cruel insult delivered, could be grounds for them being challenged to a duel. Yes, they can refuse and look cowardly fools in front of those with whom they associate – but could they afford to? Most thugs are not psychotic - they are simply violent, and being around others like them encourages this. Such violence is as a rule inflicted by groups. So for thugs to risk a challenge to a duel would mean either a fatal risk to themselves or looking foolish before the only ones they care to impress. Suddenly, decency and respect for others would be more natural. It is more trouble than it is worth to insult someone when he could be firing a bullet into your heart the next morning. It isn’t worth getting into a bar-room brawl any more if it means the man over whose head you shatter a beer glass could be the one who forces you to alienate what worthless friends you have by refusing a duel with him. There would still be much remaining violence of course, but overhanging it would always be the threat of honourable, deadly combat, which would reduce many a man’s violent instincts by activating his survival instinct.
And this would be among the most violent, worthless elements of society! The effect elsewhere would be just as great, because although the macho fear of turning down a duel would be less, the desire to inflict pain would be civilised more by morals and decency. Society would still be controlled to a degree by law and morality, but the underlying threat of death would also force people to think more about how their actions will affect others.
Now there are practical problems with this idea. First, how to distinguish a duel from a gangland shooting. Simply lifting the laws tomorrow would give an easy to excuse to many a murderer. Contracts would have to be signed by both parties, and the usual legal bunkum agreed. Not only would this protect duellers from murder charges and ensure the jailing of gangland killers, but it would also ensure that both combatants had the chance to change their mind. Sufficient legal documents and photos would have to be signed to ensure that no one could reasonably doubt afterwards that a duel was agreed.
Now would this lead to much unnecessary death? I do not believe so. I believe it would make men automatically more decent, respectful and kind to one another. They wouldn’t even have to consciously think about how they were risking a duel – the politeness they felt that they and others were due would come naturally to them. But in those cases where men did feel insulted and a challenge was accepted, it would still often mean death. But not always. Unlike the brutes mentioned above, civilised, worthwhile men could prove their need to society and their family, giving some other reason to refuse than cowardice. I remember reading of a case a couple of centuries ago of a man accepting a challenge on the condition that his opponent breakfasted with him the morning of the duel. That morning came, and at the end of the breakfast he explained that he could not any longer accept the challenge, because he and his opponent were not on even terms. The host had a family of seven who relied completely on his support. The challenger agreed that he had nothing comparable which he was staking - merely his own life, with no family left behind struggling - and withdrew his own request for the duel. This remarkably civilised approach comes naturally to Englishmen separated from government and made responsible for their own fate.
Could duelling be acceptable in today’s society? There are some, I am sure, who would deem it too uncivilised. But it is they who have created a country of contempt for civility, respect and chivalry. It is their Britain where drunken louts brawl and rob every night, terrorising millions. By comparison, a civilised duel is nothing. I do not necessarily think I would vote favour of legalising duelling, but I do believe the libertarian argument against criminalizing it may be right.
Shooter, you would have to be banned from this I fear.
What makes you say that?
>:)
That's why dueling pistols were always a matched set with smooth bore barrels that used ball ammunition.
It takes nerves of steel, a steady hand and focused attention to put a kill shot out before the other person nails you!
If people get sick enough of lawyers, it just might happen.
That would give the advantage automatically to the stronger and/or larger man.The pistol is the "equalizer."
With the tiller over my shoulder, I can light a match at 50 paces with my .54 smoothbore Hand Gonne. I haven't tried any farther, because I've only had it a week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.