The Flaws Of Dueling

I usually mock groups like Intellectual Takeout without directly involving myself in their shallowness and illogicality, but I happened to unintentionally discover a rather amusing but at least somewhat unironic article [1] written by IT's co-founder.  In it, the author gives a positive description of dueling, where one person challenges another to exchange gunshots that might result in death.  He elaborates on the potential deterrence that might accompany dueling without ever acknowledging that deterrence has nothing to do with whether or not something is morally permissible.  According to the author, gossip, slander, and moral laziness would suddenly decline if dueling made a comeback.  The article goes so far as to assert that "America has not seen its last duel," claiming that the practice will return as America regains an arbitrary sense of honor.

What exactly is this practice supposed to demonstrate other than that one person has a better aim or speed than another?  Dueling proves only that one person is more skilled or luckier than someone else when it comes to using a weapon.  It establishes nothing about the legitimacy of the motivations or causes for which the duelists fight, yet some have historically looked to it as if it is an intrinsically honorable, upright thing.  How does it in any way demonstrate moral superiority?  It can't!  It only means that the participants are willing to engage in extra-legal rituals intended to result in death.  Of course, there is the glaring moral issue of killing (or attempting to kill someone) outside of the Bible's prescriptions for capital punishment and war or allowances for self-defense.

Only an intellectual insect is unable to see through the obvious fallacies behind the very concept of "legitimate dueling."  Though Intellectual Takeout claims to have a high regard for the Bible (as other articles evidence), it seems to literally endorse the idea of dueling over petty perceptions of honor, despite the fact that this would easily involve injuring or killing someone.  Mosaic Law only permits the infliction of injury or death in select cases of self-defense, warfare, and corporal or capital punishment, and yet the Bible even emphasizes precise moral limitations governing each of these things.

Even when the Bible does prescribe or permit violence, there are always stark limitations on how that violence can be pursued.  When it comes to defense of themselves or even of another person, people are disallowed from seizing the genitalia of the opposite gender (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or harming bystanders (Exodus 21:22).  War is not intrinsically wrong, but it must be preceded by sincere attempts to avoid bloodshed (Deuteronomy 20:10).  Furthermore, corporal punishment using lashes is explicitly limited to 40 strokes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), with flogging someone to death being a crime (Exodus 21:20); Biblical capital punishment is restricted to specific crimes and particular methods.

The Bible, including both the Old and New Testament, is far from a pacifist book, but it is thoroughly against casual, gratuitous violence like that of a duel.  Every instance of violence that it prescribes exists solely in the context of self-preservation or justice.  Either Intellectual Takeout (more like Intellectual Fakeout) is ignorant of the positions of its co-founder, which is very unlikely, or it does not care about them being so flawed.  In both cases, it is willing to have an article written by its co-founder actually claim that something like dueling is necessary to resurrect a vague and undefined notion of honor.  There is a word for killing someone outside of just self-defense, warfare, or capital punishment: murder.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


[1].  https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dueling-time-bring-it-back