Should Adults Be Legally Allowed to...

...consent to engaging in activity in which they can be intentionally harmed? An example of this is fighting. If two grown men have a disagreement and decide that they want to settle it by fighting, do you think they should be allowed to do this without possibly being penalized by any law? Another example would be a fight club, in which participants engage in brutal fighting just for the hell of it.

I personally think it should be allowed, even if it can result in the death of a participant. My reason for this is my belief that adults should have the right to engage in any activity that is not harmful to those who are not engaging in it (e.g. drug use, the aforementioned example of fighting, etc).

EDIT:

Most of you, in fact all of you, are missing the point of this thread.

• Fighting is simply one example of an activity in which those not involved wouldn't be hurt. Another, as mentioned in the OP, is drug use. You guys are caught up on the example of fighting.
• You guys are getting caught up in the specifics of how such a legal right could be exercised. I simply asked whether such a right should exist or not, in your opinions.

just keep it indoors, private, and don't promote kids getting into it

Pistols duels would be cool.

Doesn't that pose the problem that you can beat someone up and then say they consented to the fight, or even consent to a fight and afterwards go to the police and tell them you didn't?

You could sign a contract specifying the terms.

@deeliman: my thoughts exactly. In order for this kind of law to work, you'd have to set up some kind of contract system imposed by a government agency, and the whole thing would be a bureaucratic mess.

I figured that such an idea was implied by my suggestion.

Something like that would probably have to be enforced by a government agency, which would be a waste of money since I don't think many people feel the need to settle their arguments with a fight to the death, thus it wouldn't get use often.

That's a good point, although we already have this problem with sex.

You people, the mentality. No government agency, lets leave it to the private sector.

There's no need for a new agency. Preexisting police departments could deal with this.

This is 100% accurate.

Getting an athletic commission (government agency) to approve a mutual fight with no money on the line would basically just be an Amateur MMA bout (you'd be better off going that route)

Who could be easily bribed, making it very easy for rich people that get away with murder.

Too much work, risk, and liability for something that offers them (department) no real beneit

Still seems like a waste of time for something this stupid. I'd rather they focus on actual issues.

There are also just so many legal issues involved with this, that the law would be a huge clusterfuck.

Federal Bureau of Pointless Bravado..rolls right off the tongue!

Most beat cops have tons of down time. Having a few people per day sign a contract by which they agree to a fight, under the supervision of a beat cop, would put no strain on police forces.

If there was a way for them to privately seek medical attention I'd be all for it. Good example is the UFC. UFC pays all the medical bills for their fighters.

Go find some other profession to fulfill your deluded fantasies, please.

Cops aren't the ones who do all the legal stuff involving contracts. Still, that cop than gets payed to do something that has no use for society whatsoever, and it seems like a bad idea to waste tax money on something this stupid.

Most of you, in fact all of you, are missing the point of this thread.

• Fighting is simply one example of an activity in which those not involved wouldn't be hurt. Another, as mentioned in the OP, is drug use. You guys are caught up on the example of fighting.
• You guys are getting caught up in the specifics of how such a legal right could be exercised. I simply asked whether such a right should exist or not, in your opinions.

Allowing people to vent their rage and frustration can be very beneficial to society. Less stressful people means a happier society.

Sure.

The drug example isn't a good because as you said, that would harm just an individual but with fighting that would include another party.

There are other ways to do that which wouldn't involve wasting the time of cops.

Go to your local martial arts/mma gym and sign an amateur bout then (insurance is provided in most states/promotions and its quick/easy to get a bout, especially if two people already agree to fight each other).

The question of this thread is the following: "Should adults be legally allowed to consent to engaging in activity in which they can be intentionally harmed?"

The question in and of itself does not necessitate that more than one party be involved. Hence, drug use a perfect example.

Well, "Should adults be legally allowed to consent to engaging in activity in which they can be intentionally harmed?" is too vague. It could apply to so many things that you can't just outright say yes or no. You have to look at everything individually.

You know what, you are right, I read that the wrong way. In term of drugs, yes, knock yourself out.

sorry for being nuanced and critical.

Sounds barbaric.

Well they can in many cases

^^^^^^^^

Plenty of people have died in a Boxing ring and the other guy never gets charged.

@BluRayHiDef: There used to be duels with weapons of choice in the west and kung fu duels in China. Katana duels occurred in Japan. All of these were to the death if agreed to be and outlawed because they were considered barbaric which is unfitting of modern societies. They being legal with likely not occur again.

If you have to be physical, you can study under a professional teacher. Sparring sessions often occur at least once a week. On the contrary, if you resort to physical confrontations to resolve intellectual issues, you will likely just be arrested or at the very least considered tactless unless you are in a sport in which case you will be hyping a match.

sex outdoors is good for the soul~

If both agree to a fight terms before hand then sure, if not and one side provokes physical confrontation then that person should be held as the offending party, some areas have laws allowing for such fights, others not.

I'm conflicted about the idea, some part of me thinks that it should be allowed when two people agree to a fight to avoid legal troubles for themselves. Then again I can see trouble when someone takes the confrontation too far. I mean if they take the time to extensively lay out combat rules and when the fight stops then sure, if not then no.

Then again if they have such laws then when should the line be drawn, I mean what's to say someone won't take it to flintlock pistol or sword dueling.

That's how I used to do it at school. Make a date for a fight and show up on time with a bunch of people around to watch. Nice, clean fights and no dirty shots and either could stop the fight by giving up. After that we walk our separate ways and remember our victories and loses.

LOL.

no i don't, no act of violence should be allowed to be practiced in public unless it's absolutely necessary. it's not like those who participate in street fights make such decisions in an stable state of mind.

as long as their actions don't negatively affect anyone else, then consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want.

now that we have nationalized healthcare...no

sure. thin out the herd a little bit.

The fighting one may be questionable, but I think adults should be allowed to consume drugs if they so wish.

If they don't get medical treatment afterwards, I couldn't care less what they want to do.

@thegerg: The difference is the likelihood and expectation. You walk down the street when the very reasonable assumption that you won't be harmed. The same can't be said for some sort of fight club.