Transcript Violence

解讀奧林匹克精神
運動暴力問題
Violence in Sport
I. Violence and Aggression
II. Ethics, Sport and Boxing
III. Should Boxing be
banned?
I. Violence and Aggression in sport
Review Parry (1998)







1. Concept of assertion, aggression & violence
2. Violence and Intention
3. Ethics and violence
4. What is wrong with violence?
5. Types of sports violence
6. Some examples
7. Sports education & non-violence
II. Ethics, Sport and Boxing

1. Is Boxing a Sport?

2. A Moral Evaluation
Against and For
III. Should Boxing be banned?
1. Paternalism and Mill’s Harm Principle
 2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle
 3. Boxing and the Protection of society
 4. Boxing, Morality and Legality
 Conclusion one (Simon, 1991)
 Conclusion two (Schneider &
Butcher,2001)

I. Violence and Aggression in sport

Recap Competition: Is aggression wrong
in sport?
Review Parry’s (1998) paper:

1.Assertion, aggression and violence:
( 1) Assertion: not forcefulness.
( 2) Aggression: forceful.
( 3) Violence: attempts to harm.
2. Violence and Intention:
(1) Violent acts vs. acts of
violence.
 Violent
acts:
vigorously,
energetically.
 Act of violence: not by manner but
consequence.
(2) Two ethical theories:
a. Consequentialism:
b. Non-consequentialism:
3. Ethics of violence:
–Gain an advantage; intimidate;
force withdrawal; challenge the
referee.
4. What is wrong with violence?
(1) In general: rule-breaking.
(2) In addition: intention to harm; failing
to respect opponents.

–
–
–
–
5. Types of sports violence:
brutal body contact;
borderline violence;
quasi-criminal violence;
criminal violence.

6. Some examples:
(1) soccer: tackle – too hard or too aggressive?
(2) rugby: violent sport not sport of violence.
(3) American football: violent acts not act of
violence.
(4) Boxing: knock-down, knock-out and knock-off.

7. Sports education and non-violence:

Games as laboratories for value experiments.

More assertive and aggressive; less violent ones.

Sport - agent of moral change.
II. Ethics, Sport and Boxing

1. Is Boxing a sport?
 Philosophical view: goals, rules,
physical skills
 Sociological view:
2. A moral evaluation

Against:
(1) The object of boxing: intend to harm.
(2) The effect of boxing: (medical association)
 .Death : 361 btw 1945-1995
 .Brain damage: strong punch, gloves, helmets.
 .Eye damage: retinal tears (e.g. Japanese boxer Tatsuyoshi).
 .Psychological harm:
 .Harm to spectators:


Boxing is inherently barbaric or uncivilized
Links to organized crime –gambling.
For:
(1)
Freedom,
noninterference
autonomy,
consent
and
(2) Harm principle:
(3) The state ought not to interfere with boxing.
(4) No evidence of Harm:
(5) Or less harm: So why then ban boxing?

(6)

a. need to look more specific way

b. long term ‘brain injury’

c. consider all sports’ risk.
Reply:
(7) The value of boxing: build
character?
(8) It offers a route out of poverty and
despair?
(9) The special status of boxing:



it is not clear how boxing could be conducted
without fighting and harm.
Test of physical skill without harm is possible (cf
fencing)
Change from fight into a proper ‘game’ (rules)
III. Should Boxing be banned?
1. Paternalism & Mill’s Harm Principles

Mill’s ‘On liberty’: prevent harm to others.
(1) unclear about utility;
(2) moral choice;
(3) the rights of the boxers and spectators.
2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle

Harm principles: ‘apply only to maturity’.
(1) So: children & mentally incompetent are not
allowed.
(2) Ghetto – ‘disadvantaged’? But: not every boxer is
from disadvantaged background.
(3) Conclusion: paternalism is not conclusive.
3.Boxing and the Protection of Society
Harm themselves? What about ‘sport of
Mayhem’ (gladiators)?
(2) Indirect Harm: Children might come to idolize
(imitate) trained killers.
(3) Exposure to boxing contributes to the risk of
violence throughout society.
(4) Adulation of the violence – less civilized
society (communitarian view).
(5) Self are formed within communities – should
not tolerate violence.
(1)
4.Boxing, Morality and Legality
( 1 ) Paternalistic arguments – not strong
enough. That is: boxing is not individual
violence.
(2) Standard of the community  insufficient
guide to action. (can be relative view)
(3) Boxing seems to be a borderline case 
harm is not as certain or direct.
(4) Best policy  a. not of legal interference.
b. but moral sanction and reform (modified)
(5) Examples: treat boxing not as a ‘form of
violence’.

a. Fencing from actual ‘dueling’.

b. Mandatory use of helmets by fighters.

c. Prohibition of blows to the head.

d. Scoring points (skill) rather than damage
to opponents.
Conclusion 1. (Simon, 1991):

While we should respect individual liberty
(thus no legal ban), radical reform of boxing
seems to be morally justified.
Conclusion 2. (Schneider & Butcher, 2001)





Freedom to choose: central component of liberal
democracy. But we live in communities. If boxing
as a form of fight – socially useless.
The state has a role in protecting the interest of
‘unable’ ones.
Recommendation: ban boxing under the age of 18.
Reasons: a. children are not able to make a valid
consent to box. b. parents should not make a
decision for children.
We should not encourage boxing. eg. Olympic
Games.
References

Parry, S.J. (1998). Violence and
aggression in contemporary sport.

Simon, R. L. (1991). Violence in Sports.

Schneider & Butcher (2001). Ethics,
Sport, and Boxing.