5 ms·
The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. Roman gladiatorial combat was perfectly legal at the time.
by pjlegato 10y ago
The games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. Roman gladiatorial combat was perfectly legal at the time.
- pcunite 10y agoWeren't some persons there against their will?
- solipsism 10y agoThe games weren't "murder," which is by definition the unlawful taking of another's life. That's the legal definition. Not the only definition.
- inimino 10y agoWhy are we obligated to honor the Roman law in our use of this word?
- gozur88 10y agoBecause Roman law had jurisdiction?
- inimino 10y agoThat's not the point. By calling something "murder" even though it may have been legal, we are passing moral judgment on the act as well as the law and society that tolerated it. To act as though someone using this term is simply unaware that it was legal, and needs a lesson on Roman law, is simply to be obtuse.
- arunix 10y agoThe article includes the following words of Seneca: "All the previous fighting had been merciful by comparison. Now finesse is set aside, and we have pure unadulterated murder..."
- pjlegato 10y agoSeneca was, therefore, wrong in his assessment (assuming that the English translation is entirely accurate.)