Do you believe in fighting fair? (in the context of a physical confrontation)

in this instance, we are talking about a situation where you are
a) attacked
or
b) forced into a fight

the attacker has no weapons and it is one on one

Depends on the fight. If I'm fighting for my life, anything goes. If I'm only fighting to subdue someone, I'll try to not leave lasting injuries.

Originally Posted by La Li Lu Le Lo

Depends on the fight. If I'm fighting for my life, anything goes. If I'm only fighting to subdue someone, I'll try to not leave lasting injuries.

there is a poll now and I edited to OP to a more specific situation described above

That you were attacked or forced into a fight precludes a consensual agreement to "fair" tactics. The circumstances are not that of an agreed upon contest. IMO, ethically, anything goes as is necessary for self defense. IMO, excessive force would not be justified, however.

E.g. If my opponent were clearly defeated, and instead of walking away, I stomp his teeth in. That's not necessary for self-defense. That would likely be out of anger and resentment. I'm sure that 99% of people that would use excessive force would proclaim that the other person "deserved" it, but that is extremely subjective. E.g. "He stepped on my shoe in the movie theater, then told me to "fuck off" when I told him to watch where he was walking. So, I waited for him in the parking lot, and gouged out his eyes with a switchblade. He was an inconsiderate prick and deserved exactly what he got. In fact, he should consider himself fortunate that I did not kill him". You can justify virtually anything by saying the other person "deserved" it for some reason.

As I martial artist I can respect people who think that fighting fair in a street fight is a good idea. However, in the situation given, the smartest idea is to take the guy out by any means necassary. When it comes to self defense martial arts teaches one thing: survive. Do whatever it takes. Typically what it takes is something "dirty". Heck, most practitioners say that the three best places to strike are the groin, throat and eyes. Not very honorable, but extremely effective.

I have zero fighting skills. I would probably be pulverized. ^_^U

In a scenario in which I did, I would try to defend myself as best I could without hurting them too badly. I don't want to do anything unnecessary. But if fighting dirty is necessary to live, then I would.

I would fight fair. When one doesn't fight fair, it is telling the other person that you dont think you are good enough to fight them when they are ready to fight. That is why people dont like people who throw sucker punches.

As long as the other person is ready, go all out haha....I wanna get into a fight!! thatd be pretty cool...but im too big and nice. Id want to fight a stupid person, and thatd probably happen if someone cant recognize sarcasm or something.

I'm a pacifist for moral reasons. Besides that, I have no natural inclination to defend my body, and tend to either flee (if allowed) or try to make myself a smaller target by balling myself up, making sure I am in a corner so my back is protected, and covering any vulnerable areas, such as my head and neck with my arms while guarding everything else with my knees and lower legs. I survived many years of being beaten up because of the effectiveness of this approach, with only a few minor lumps on my head from not moving my arms to block the punches fast enough, and a couple of black eyes from unexpected attacks. Of course, blocking in this manner often leaves one's shoulders and arms very colorful and sore for a while after. It probably saved my life, though, because if I had uncurled myself in order to return the violence, I would have made myself a much larger target.

In a non-physical conflict, I play by certain rules. I try to avoid intentionally saying hurtful things, I do not say things unless I believe them to be true, I don't play devil's advocate just to get someone worked up, and I avoid making things personal, such as by calling people offensive names. I take note of people's weaknesses so I can avoid poking at them. Sure, I might call someone a bully if the person is being emotionally abusive, or a bigot if s/he is being prejudiced, but only if the person is actually behaving in such a manner. I do not consider such labels insulting when they are used accurately to draw attention to unacceptable behaviors that victimize people.

That is as far as I usually go unless I consider the person an especially dangerous, sadistic sort of person, in which case I might be slightly bolder, by proposing some kind of hypothetical forced empathy, through a fittingly vengeful act that I would never actually carry out. I dislike seeing even my enemies suffer, regardless of whether it is for the sake of justice and reform. As it turns out, if I were okay with cruelty, as I would have to be in order to be willing to give my enemies a taste of their own medicine, I probably wouldn't feel the need to change them in the first place, because seeing people suffer wouldn't bother me enough to motivate such extreme protective inclinations.

"Rules" need to be mutually agreed upon. Thus, if I am forced into a fight, I couldn't have agreed to any rules for the fight, since I didn't agree on the fight in the first place.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."

-Niccolo Machiavelli