Honour or pragmatism?

I was recently in a discussion that, after a while, eventually led to the general statement that if one is in a fight, no matter the sort of fight, the only acceptable course of action is to kill the other person as quickly as possible.

This offends me to my very core.

So, I ask you, good tropers, am I completely insane for believing that you shouldn't take a gun to a fist fight? Is it truly a barbaric concept to wish to fight on equal terms?

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

You shouldn't bring a knife or gun or whatever weapon to a fistfight because you will get a prison sentence or worse for it.

If you want to be a moral person don't get into a fight.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

It depends on the stakes of the fight, and what the other person's intentions are. If they have attacked you with intent to kill and present a credible threat of killing you, then you are morally justified in killing them in self-defense, though if non-lethal methods are available without unacceptable risk they should be attempted to the end of their utility. The idea that you should immediately kill your opponent in any fight seems like either the result of someone who's too clever overgeneralizing a maxim, or someone thinking only of fictional scenarios in which the stakes are always The End of the World as We Know It.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)

Why are the people fighting in the first place? Self defense? Killing would be reasonable but not necessary. Protecting someone or something? Again, killing would be reasonable but not necessary.

The circumstances ought to determine the course of action.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

OP: that sounds like a very bad policy; in a lot of countries it will land ou in jail and screw up the rest of your life. The law usually only lets you get away with murder in a narrow range of cases.

(That, and it's often immoral too)

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

I regard fighting as Dirty Business, something to be avoided whenever possible, and finished as quickly as possible on those occasions where avoidance isn't an option. Ideally, the only unavoidable fights would be those where the stakes are life or death, but reality isn't like that, and so defaulting to "kill no matter the sort of fight" is a strategy that is divorced from reality. It's fake pragmatism, the sort of thing that seems pragmatic in the same superficial sense that Darker and Edgier seems "realistic". Just because it seems like the opposite of the "honorable" thing. But reversed stupidity is not intelligence. I absolutely advocate pragmatism over honor, but pragmatism involves picking the right tool for the job. Killing with no regard as to whether the situation warrants it can cause more problems than it solves.

It strikes me that there are two possible interpretations to the question in the OP: one about the morality of killing and when it is necessary, and one about fighting in the presence of major advantages/disadvantages. More clearly: would the question of whether to use a gun in a fistfight be changed if the gun was instead a reliable and safe Instant Sedation? My answer, here, is "absolutely"; the only reason not to use the most effective weapon available is if it has effects greater than you want to effect. To quote someone's sig, it's not a fair fight unless I have an ace in the hole.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)

In a perfect situation you shouldn't bring a gun to a knife fight—obviously that is shit sportsmanship and I'd probably slap you for it.

However, there are cases where you'll need to do whatever you can to survive. If it means pulling your gun on a knifeman, so be it, so long as you're using this advantage to survive and not to win some sort of "game".

edited 14th Jun '11 1:24:11 AM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

A true pragmatist avoids a fight in the first place.

"Wait, it's IV. Of course they are. They'd make IV for Dreamcast." - Enlong, on yet another FFIV remake

I can't even begin to explain what's wrong with that.

The aim of warfare and self defence is not to kill the other person, it's to eliminate the threat.

If the only practical way to achieve that end is too use lethal force then that is acceptable. But if it's just as effective to blind or dismember the enemy, then you just to do that. In fact it's preferred as they will now be a liability to their comrades.

edited 14th Jun '11 1:38:53 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Best Policy: Don't get in to any sort of situation where you need to make this kind of decision - by dealing with others honorably, you might avoid having to be pragmatic.

If, however, you do your absolute best to avoid this sort of thing and it grabs you anyway, do whatever you can to GET AWAY. If that means kicking the guy's kneecap so that it's now on the backside of his knee-joint, grabbing the nearest fistful of dirt and throwing it into his eyes, hitting below the belt with maximum power, cheap shots to the face, whatever, so be it, provided it buys you a chance to get away. You don't "win" or "lose" a fight for your life, you merely survive it or you do not. Survival need not dictate that you have to give the guy a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown - if all you have to do is shake him off so you can run to safety, that's good enough.

Honor and reason is all fine and good and I advocate using them both, but they go out the window once the other guy is gunning to cause you grievous bodily harm.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

What is the context of the fistfight?

Is it a mugging? You may use a weapon. An attempted murder? You may use a weapon. A friendly lark between mates? You may not use a weapon.

-edit-
To answer the question: true honour means not fighting. If you get into a fight, use what means are at your disposal to prevent the threat from being threatening to you. Or, rather, what he said.

edited 14th Jun '11 1:39:02 AM by AllanAssiduity

Sorry but swinging around a knife means you forfeit all rights to sportsmanship. These things are deadly.

Quoth: Indeed they are; so are swords.

People fight with swords frequently, it's called fencing.

Point being, there can still be some semblance of human decency if there's threat of serious injury involved.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

It depends on context. A duel, boxing match or other organised bout requires that rules be followed, thus you should be honourable in conduct. Some thugs jump you in an alley? Time to fight dirty.

edited 14th Jun '11 1:56:48 AM by DarkDecapodian

Aww, did I hurt your widdle fee-fees?

Sorry, I just find this "honor" thing a bit silly. I see the rules are simple:

• Don't fight.
• If you have to, do enough to save yourself (or others), but do as little damage as possible. Human life and health is precious.

Thinking about honor in such conditions is meaningless. Chose your weapon (if you can choose!) in such a way that makes the trick without "overkill". No guns against aggressive drunks, no machine gun against house robbers. It's a very simple logic.

If you are looking for a fight with honor, there are all the fighting sports.

The concept of a "honorable" fight is outdated and flawed. In such a "honorable" fight you wanted to kill the oponent and making the chances equal was a way to soothe your conscience. It made sense in a world where killing was not seen as bad thing per se, but in our world it's just pretentious. Killing is bad. You should feel bad about it. And so, if you go into the fight knowing you have to kill, just get it over with.

As much force as is needed to neutralize the threat the other person poses.

Enjoy the Inferno...

Wait, are we talking about sports in this thread? I didn't think we were.

Really? Before, and after the fight, sure, but during the fight? Hell, no.

Fighting is not something good or honourable in itself. It's just sometimes necessary as a tool. So if something is worth fighting for, it's worth fighting dirty for, and if something is not worth fighting dirty for, it's not worth fighting for.

Note this only goes for actual combat, not political fights or the like, and that "dirty" also only means discounting all that "honour" bullshit, and not ethics. Drawing in innocents, for example, is still absolutely condemnable. But honour towards your enemy? No. If they deserved honour, they shouldn't be your enemies in the first place.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

What joeyjojo said. Decide your priorities in a fight (usually "don't get hurt" and "don't risk going to jail" are good ones, I throw in "don't cause lasting harm" but I'm a softie). According to your priorities, create and seize the optimal outcome for you as efficiently as possible.

Honour is not one of my priorities, not by a long shot. Hell, if you want to be a Martial Pacifist, you have to fight dirty. The irritation from pepper spray to the eyes will go away in a few days, right?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

When someone assaults you and you have reason to believe your life or limb is in danger, you may use as much force as you think you require to survive.

Fastest, cheapest, simplest way to do it is to apply the .357 treatment to your attacker. Twice or thrice, center of mass.

edited 14th Jun '11 5:24:12 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

There is a thin line between self-defense and murder. When you shoot or stab an assailant you're making it even more likely you'll end up getting thrown in jail.

@OP: I'm generally for pragmatisim over honor, but in this case it depends on a few things. Why are you fighting?

If it's a fight at school, it's not a good idea to crush the other guys trachea. Do everything in you your power to avoid conflict, but if conflict is certain, you do whatever is necessary to survive and extract yourself from the situation.

Ex. Some guy just shoved your gf, you don't shoot him. You have to take the legal ramifications into account before you act.

Now if you're in combat and you get into a fight, you do whatever you need to do to stay alive; there's not going to be anyone to pull you apart or blow a whistle and call the match.

Honor is wonderful until death is on the line. At that point anything goes. Species or societies don't last very long if they don't go to the mat with everything they've got.

the pronoun system in Cherokee is just better. Need Scion GM.

This isn't a case of one over the other.

Honour is important when the nature of the violence stems from a social cause. In these scenarios, where death and injury are beside the point and the stakes are abstract, honour must be maintained. Otherwise, there's no point. Although these situations are stupid anyway.

If someone seeks to do you tangible injury or death, then honour has no purpose and you're obliged to fight with whatever means necessary to win. This might include killing, even if you're armed and they aren't. Such an example is when you have a weapon and an unarmed person presents a threat. It would be foolish not to use the weapon, as you would put yourself at risk unnecessarily. Before anyone claims that an unarmed person cannot be a threat to someone with a weapon, this is false. An unarmed opponent who is good at taking opportunities or voiding strikes can be deadly.

edited 14th Jun '11 6:56:09 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch