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) n 1. Concept of assertion, aggression & violence n 2. Violence and Intention n 3. Ethics and violence n 4. What is wrong with violence? n 5. Types of sports violence n 6. Some examples n 7. Sports education & non-violence

II. Ethics, Sport and Boxing n 1. Is Boxing a Sport? n 2. A Moral Evaluation Against and For

III. Should Boxing be banned? n 1. Paternalism and Mill’s Harm Principle n 2. Exceptions to the Harm Principle n 3. Boxing and the Protection of society n 4. Boxing, Morality and Legality n Conclusion one (Simon, 1991) n Conclusion two (Schneider & Butcher,2001)

I. Violence and Aggression in sport n n Recap Competition: Is aggression wrong in sport? Review Parry’s (1998) paper: n n 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 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.

n n 5. Types of sports violence: –brutal body contact; –borderline violence; –quasi-criminal violence; –criminal violence.

n n 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.

n n 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 n n 1. Is Boxing a sport?   Philosophical view: goals, rules, physical skills   Sociological view:

2. A moral evaluation n n Against: (1) (1) The object of boxing: intend to harm. (2) (2) The effect of boxing: (medical association).. Death : 361 btw 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?

n n (6) Reply: n n a. need to look more specific way n n 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 banned? 1. Paternalism & Mill’s Harm Principles n n 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 n n 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’. n n b. Mandatory use of helmets by fighters. n n c. Prohibition of blows to the head. d. d. Scoring points (skill) rather than damage to opponents.

Conclusion 1. (Simon, 1991): n n 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 n Parry, S.J. (1998). Violence and aggression in contemporary sport. n Simon, R. L. (1991). Violence in Sports. n Schneider & Butcher (2001). Ethics, Sport, and Boxing.