解讀奧林匹克精神解讀奧林匹克精神

運動暴力問題運動暴力問題Violence in SportViolence in Sport

I. Violence and Aggression I. Violence and Aggression

II. Ethics, Sport and II. Ethics, Sport and BoxingBoxing

III. Should Boxing be III. Should Boxing be banned?banned?

I. Violence and Aggression in I. Violence and Aggression in sportsport

Review Parry (1998)Review Parry (1998) 1. Concept of 1. Concept of assertionassertion, , aggressionaggression & &

violenceviolence 2. Violence and Intention2. Violence and Intention 3. Ethics and violence3. Ethics and violence 4. What is wrong with violence?4. What is wrong with violence? 5. Types of sports violence5. Types of sports violence 6. Some examples6. Some examples 7. Sports education & non-violence7. Sports education & non-violence

II. Ethics, Sport and BoxingII. Ethics, Sport and Boxing

1. 1. Is Boxing a Sport?Is Boxing a Sport?

2. A Moral Evaluation2. A Moral Evaluation

Against and ForAgainst and For

III. Should Boxing be III. Should Boxing be banned?banned?

1. 1. Paternalism and Mill’s Harm PrinciplePaternalism and Mill’s Harm Principle 2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle 3. Boxing and the Protection of society3. Boxing and the Protection of society 4. Boxing, Morality and Legality4. Boxing, Morality and Legality Conclusion one (Simon, 1991)Conclusion one (Simon, 1991) Conclusion two (Schneider & Conclusion two (Schneider &

Butcher,2001)Butcher,2001)

I. Violence and Aggression in I. Violence and Aggression in sportsport

Recap Competition: Is aggression wrong in sport?

Review Parry’s (1998) paper:

1.Assertion, aggression and violence:

( 1) 1) Assertion: not forcefulness.

( 2) 2) Aggression: forceful.

( 3) 3) Violence: attempts to harm.

2.2. Violence and Intention:

(1) (1) Violent acts vs. acts of violence. Violent acts: vigorously,

energetically. Act of violence: not by manner but

consequence.

(2) (2) Two ethical theories:

a. Consequentialism:

b. Non-consequentialism:

3. Ethics of violence:

– Gain an advantage; intimidate; force Gain an advantage; intimidate; force withdrawal; challenge the referee.withdrawal; challenge the referee.

4. What is wrong with violence?

(1) (1) In general: rule-breaking.

(2) (2) In addition: intention to harm; failing to respect opponents.

5. Types of sports violence:

– brutal body contact; brutal body contact; – borderline violence; borderline violence; – quasi-criminal violence; quasi-criminal violence; – criminal violence.criminal violence.

6. Some examples:

(1) (1) soccer: tackle – too hard or too aggressive?

(2) (2) rugby: violent sport not sport of violence.

(3) (3) American football: violent acts not act of violence.

(4) (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 BoxingII. Ethics, Sport and Boxing

1. Is Boxing a sport?

Philosophical view: goals, rules, physical skills

Sociological view:

2. A moral evaluation

Against:(1) (1) The object of boxing: intend to harm.

(2) (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) (1) Freedom, autonomy, consent and noninterference

(2) Harm principle:

(3) (3) The state ought not to interfere with boxing.

(4) (4) No evidence of Harm:

(5) (5) Or less harm: So why then ban boxing?

(6) Reply:

a. need to look more specific way

b. long term ‘brain injury’

c. c. consider all sports’ risk.

(7) The value of boxing: build character?

(8) (8) It offers a route out of poverty and despair?

(9) (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 III. Should Boxing be banned?banned?

1. 1. Paternalism & Mill’s Harm Paternalism & Mill’s Harm PrinciplesPrinciples

Mill’s ‘On liberty’: prevent harm to others.

(1) (1) unclear about utility;

(2) (2) moral choice;

(3) (3) the rights of the boxers and spectators.

2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle

Harm principles: ‘apply only to maturity’.

(1) (1) So: children & mentally incompetent are not allowed.

(2) (2) Ghetto – ‘disadvantaged’? But: not every boxer is from disadvantaged background.

(3) (3) Conclusion: paternalism is not conclusive.

3.3.Boxing and the Protection of Society

(1) (1) Harm themselves? What about ‘sport of Mayhem’ (gladiators)?

(2) (2) Indirect Harm: Children might come to idolize (imitate) trained killers.

(3) (3) Exposure to boxing contributes to the risk of violence throughout society.

(4) (4) Adulation of the violence – less civilized society (communitarian view).

(5) (5) Self are formed within communities – should not tolerate violence.

4.4.Boxing, Morality and Legality

(1) (1) Paternalistic arguments – not strong enough. That is: boxing is not individual violence.

(2) (2) Standard of the community insufficient guide to action. (can be relative view)

(3) (3) Boxing seems to be a borderline case harm is not as certain or direct.

(4) (4) Best policy a. not of legal interference. b. but moral sanction and reform (modified)

(5) (5) Examples: treat boxing not as a ‘form of violence’.

a. a. Fencing from actual ‘dueling’.

b. Mandatory use of helmets by fighters.

c. Prohibition of blows to the head.

d. 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.

ReferencesReferences

Parry, S.J. (1998). Violence and Parry, S.J. (1998). Violence and aggression in contemporary sport.aggression in contemporary sport.

Simon, R. L. (1991). Violence in Simon, R. L. (1991). Violence in Sports.Sports.

Schneider & Butcher (2001). Ethics, Schneider & Butcher (2001). Ethics, Sport, and Boxing.Sport, and Boxing.