解讀奧林匹克精神運動暴力問題 Violence in Sport

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, autonomy, consent and noninterference (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) Reply: • a. need to look more specific way • b. long term ‘brain injury’ • c. consider all sports’ risk.

(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 (1) 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.

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.

解讀奧林匹克精神運動暴力問題 Violence in Sport