But anyway, this is a good question, and much less silly than "why can't pawns ride the knights?" or some dumb thing. But even so, what I like to say to those is the game and rules aren't meant to tell a story or emulate real battle / war or anything like that. The rules are only there to make a game rich in strategy and tactics that's enjoyable, and I think the current rules are good.
Not that I don't understand the logic. Sometimes I think during a game, if my king is in check, why can't I counter with a check and if they capture my king I capture theirs and it's a draw? Seem fair to me
In similar discussions I've seen people say either an older version of chess or a similar game (I've forgotten) had/has the rule the stalemate is a loss... for the side giving stalemate!