8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture
My Rebuttal of a Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts

Thanks to Jim Prouty for sharing this article with me:

https://www.jiujitsutimes.com/dixon-on-the-intrinsic-immorality-of-mma/

The article (posted yesterday) is the response to “A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts” by Nicholas Dixon in a publication called, Public Affairs Quarterly.

You need to read the original piece and rebuttal (please do so before commenting), but the essential argument for the immorality of MMA (and full contact combat sports generally) is that the aim of the sport is to intentionally cause physical harm to another person. It is argued it is inherently wrong to have these kinds of harmful intentions toward another human being, and it is also wrong to enact those intentions where there is no justification (i.e. not in self-defence). He also argues it is immoral to treat another human beings as a means to an end. He argues that in MMA one’s opponent is reduced to a means to an end i.e. something that needs harmed (“violated” and “degraded” too) to achieve the goal of victory.

To me, the arguments made in support of the notion that MMA is inherently immoral fall apart once consent is factored in. Nicholas Dixon does try to address this by comparing MMA to prostitution (among other things) and does state that, “We should, though, temper our moral criticism of professional cage fighters themselves to the extent that de facto economic coercion influences them to engage in this morally problematic practice in the first place.” It’s a very poor argument. Most fighters are not engaged in MMA due to prior abuse, threats of violence if they don’t, people trafficking, financial desperation or drug addiction (as with prostitution). They are competing in MMA because they legitimately want to!

Nicholas Dixon, obviously a non-fighter, fails to get this and he does need to accept that the consent to fight is legitimate and not at all coerced.

Putting that aside there are other failings in the argument too.

Let’s start by looking at the pivotal idea of “harm”. Harm is defined as:

Physical or mental damage or injury: something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.

If you prevent an individual from doing an activity that they feel enriches their lives and gives them a positive challenge, then it could be said you are making them “less valuable or successful” (by the individual’s own definitions). The removal of the freedom to pursue such activities is therefore harmful. The fact that two fighters consent to fight means that there is no “harm” in the greater sense because their mutual consent gives each other the opportunity to fight. This is something they both want. There is a willing trade from both parties i.e. the mutual risk of injury for the mutual ability to compete in combat sports.

The aim of MMA is also not “to harm others” but to win in accordance with the rules. MMA fighters don’t hit low, bite, drive thumbs in to eyes, because to do so would see them lose the fight. Those things would harm the other person, but they are not done because causing harm is not the aim. The aim is to win.

Nicholas Dixon assertion that MMA’s “explicit goal is to hurt and incapacitate opponents” is therefore false from the off. The aim is to win; and to win one needs to abide by the safety rules of MMA.

As an obvious hole in his argument, a skilfully applied submission neither hurts nor incapacitates as the opponent taps out. The recipient taps out, the applier gets the victory, and the recipient is neither hurt nor incapacitated. Again, the aim is to win.

Other aims of MMA are to engage in an intense physical challenge, to enjoy the adrenaline rush, to entertain others, to test oneself, to earn money, and on and on. Is it inherently morally wrong to want to entertain? Is it inherently morally wrong to want to test oneself? Is it inherently morally wrong to enjoy an activity with someone else who also enjoys the same activity? Is it inherently morally wrong to earn money doing something you love, you freely engage in, and others love too? I would say not.

So the proposition that the aim of MMA is to physically harms others falls flat. The aims of MMA are to entertain, allow people to test themselves, to make money, to give people a safe and enjoyable way to enjoy their passion with other fighters, and so on. The notion that MMA is inherently immoral therefore also falls flat because the stated aim is not correct.

The notion that one’s opponent is treated as a “means to an end” is also wrong. As we have discussed, the opponent is a willing partner who is making a trade with fellow fighter.

Nicholas Dixon: A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts wrote:
A man treats a woman as a sex object if he regards her merely as a source of sexual gratification, without regard for her own desires or interests. Muggers treat their victims solely as objects from which to obtain money. Sycophants treat their rich acquaintances in the same way, albeit in a slightly more subtle manner. Ruthless politicians treat rivals and colleagues alike merely as stepping stones—objects to be manipulated—to their own accumulation of power.

Nicholas Dixon: A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts wrote:
The burden of proof, then, is on defenders of MMA to show why the practice is not a prime instance of treating opponents as worthless objects rather than as intrinsically valuable ends in themselves.

Allow me :-)

The link to MMA does not hold water because the opponent is not simply an object upon which to inflict one’s desire to harm others. The opponent is, above all else, a person who can provide a challenge. And this implys intrinsic worth.

No fighter wants to simply harm others. If they did, their aims would be best served by fighting people they can easily beat. We don’t see this. Everyone wants to fight people deemed their equals or betters. It is the challenge from an equal they want! The MMA fighter does not want a person they can hurt (“a worthless object”); they want a person who can challenge them.

Inherent in the acknowledgement that the opponent is a challenge is acknowledgement that they also have value as a fellow fighter. Distasteful “trash talk” and promotional press conference antics aside, it is obvious they value their opponent as a fellow fighter otherwise they would not want to fight them.

No champion wants to fight a relative novice (which they would do all the time if hurting a fellow human was what they were seeking). The opponent is therefore not a “worthless object to be hurt” solely for the enjoyment of hurting, but fellow fighter who has many of the attributes the fighter admires and desires in themselves.

The fact they are a mutual challenge also shows they see a comparable level of these attributes in each other. They are alike! A fighter does not see themselves as an “object to be harmed” and therefore they obviously don’t see their opponent in that way either.

Nicholas Dixon: A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts wrote:
While cage fighters clearly do intend to hurt and incapacitate opponents, they do not want to cause serious, permanent injury. On the contrary, just like boxers, cage fighters form a close-knit fraternity with genuine mutual respect for the courage and prowess that rivals display in their fights. This is exemplified in post-fight embraces and complimentary comments in post-fight interviews … Professional respect among cage fighters, in contrast, cannot transform violent acts into anything more than attempts to hurt and injure.

There’s a bit of contradiction here. MMA is not “violent acts that are nothing more than attempts to hurt and injure.” To the fighter, it is an intense challenge provided by a fellow fighter. If the aim was just to harm and injure others, then MMA fighters would not choose challenging opponents. Which they do. All the time.

Nicholas Dixon: A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts wrote:
The voluntary informed consent of autonomous adults normally blocks any moral criticism of their mutually consensual activities with other autonomous adults, as long as they do not harm any non-consenting parties. However, when the activity involves degrading a person, no amount of consent can erase its inherently problematic nature. Since the intent is to hurt and injure, the consent of participants is not, therefore, a moral get-out-of-jail-free card for MMA fighters, their enablers, or their spectators.

Where is the degrading of the opponent? As argued before, the very act of wishing to fight each other inherently infers the other person is deemed an equal or better. Fighters are respected by each other and spectators alike.

Nicholas Dixon does make some very tenuous comparisons to “dwarf tossing” and a fictitious gameshow where racist slurs are shouted at willing players. These are perfect examples of reductio ad absurdum!

In both of those activities little respect is show for the participants, even though they are willing participants. In MMA however, both participants are willing, and the fact of agreeing to fight each other shows respect.

As I say, put the “trash talk” to one side and it’s obvious that no fighter advances their standing by beating someone of a much lower skill level. They all want to fight people perceived as either a potential threat, an equal or a better. There is no disrespect at all. The fighter sees in the opponent the attributes they themselves admire and wish to show to the world.

MMA is not comparable with “dwarf tossing” or a fictitious racist game shows which are / would be much more one sided affairs showing obvious disrespect.

It’s a terrible paper written by a person who has no idea of what motivates fighters to fight and, instead of finding out, he has seemingly made many false assumptions to justify his own moral objection to combat sports; which are in turn based on other false assumptions.

I hope the paper is read by many people interested in MMA because – to even those with a casual interest like myself – is it so far off the mark as to be laughable.

The aim of MMA is not to harm people. And the fighters don’t see their opponents as objects to be degraded and harmed. Any notion that MMA is inherently immoral based on these two proposition is therefore without foundation.

Thoughts?

All the best,

Iain

NOTE: I’d like to keep this tread on topic. Is MMA inherently immoral based on the arguments put forth by Nicholas Dixon? What do we think of Thomas Nadelhoffer’s rebuttal? What do you think of mine? Generic MMA discussions belong in other threads. Thanks.

Chikara Andrew
Chikara Andrew's picture

Firstly I don't profess to any understanding of the works of Kant and Nussbaum to which reference in made in Dixon's piece. It is at times to a non academic a tough read.

Having read the original response from Thomas Nadelhoffer first, then the article by Dixon I had formed an outline of a response and note that when I read Iain's response that he had formed a similar opinion. 

Dixon: The burden of proof, then, is on defenders of MMA to show why the practice is not a prime instance of treating opponents as worthless objects rather than as intrinsically valuable ends in themselves

As a martial artist we are free to explore our arts to our own ends, for some of that it limited to physical exercise, for others a solid belief of their abilities to defend themselves, for some that is competitive "point" sparring. But to many MMA now represents the "ultimate" test of a martial artists ability, albeit within a competitive format governed by rules.

For people who seek to test their martial arts in this way they need an opponent, and that opponent must represent a challenge, otherwise there is no test. Therefore in spite of all the trash talk and attitude there must be an underlying respect for each to consider that they have a worthy opponent.

Dixon: Objectification by MMA fighters with the intent to physically harm and injure opponents is at least as demeaning as the objectification with the intent to demean and ridicule that occurs in dwarf tossing  

The Dwarf Tossing analogy is worthless in my opinion as an MMA bout is a matched and equal affair, with each opponent the chance of defeating the other. Dwarf Tossing is a purely one sided event with ridicule, for pay, the prime motivator. Dixon goes on to counter the Dwarf Tossing argument but fails to acknowledge the one sided issue.

I must admit by the time I got to the BDSM part I was loosing the will to read on. As I said I'm not a philosopher and am not familiar with much of what Dixon refers to but I think he fundamentally misunderstand the desire of man to push the limits of all activities that they engage in. 

My kids enjoy karate and as they continue to train they may well wish to explore the competitive elements, if as they grow they decide that they want to push themselves forward, would I support them if they considered MMA, yes of course I would. Would I be slightly uncomfortable, probably, but not from a moral standpoint.

Andrew

calaveraz
calaveraz's picture

Hi,

As a newcomer on this forum, forgive me if I make invalid remarks. To the topic. Its funny to see the contrary viewpoints of people actually being fighters and people outside. It is completely the same discussion as for computer games especially ego-shooters. And by looking at this discussion and how its going on and on, I dont think you can win this by argumentation. No matter what you say, it will be devalued with sentences starting with: "Yes, but..."  

On the other hand, what do I think of it? Doing Karate for 27 years now I must admit that I can understand some of the viewpoints. If you ask me to explain MMA to someone "outside", I would say: "ts an organised brawl. Its a reincarnation of Gladiator fights". And hey, come on, these guys want to hurt the other! This is the defined goal of this contest, isnt it? Destroy the enemy, bring him down before he brings you down. Just because they dont use really deadly techniques (yet) it doesnt mean they dont want to hurt. And they blindly (or even willingly?) accept the risk of inflicting serious damage to their opponents. At least I never hit my "friends" with a full knee strike (several times) and when they fall, I jump onto them hitting even harder, hammering on their heads until someone drags me of.   

But wait...that reminds me of something. Look at all these cool video footage about kids going on each other on the streets...hmm..I wonder what is reason and what is consequence here? Could it be that our kids learn to accept that kind of behavior, because its totally ok?...it is on TV, so it must be ok.

For me this is totally against what Funakoshi intended. So I would not encourage my kids to do MMA.

br

(another) Marc ;)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

calaveraz wrote:
As a newcomer on this forum … It is completely the same discussion as for computer games especially ego-shooters.

Welcome! Thanks for the first post!

The author of the original paper does touch on those issues, but it's not the topic of the paper. It's the very sport itself he sees as intrinsically immoral i.e. immoral in and of itself; irrespective of external impact.

calaveraz wrote:
And hey, come on, these guys want to hurt the other! This is the defined goal of this contest, isnt it? Destroy the enemy, bring him down before he brings you down.

I don’t think that’s really right. Yes, the sport involves pain, punches, knockouts, etc, but the intrinsic aim is not to hurt another human being (which is what the author of the paper states). If it was, fighters would ignore the rules, bite, gouge, strike before and after the bell, stamp on the opponent when he was down, drop them on their heads, etc. But they don’t do these things, because they are against the rules and would mean an automatic loss. This proves the aim is not to harm another human being, but to win. And in seeking to win, there is a line they won’t cross; which they would if the aim was truly to cause harm.

Indeed, the fact that MMA has safety rules shows that the aim of MMA – i.e. the fundamental goal and reason for it existing – is not harming others.

It an important distinction when it comes to the intrinsic mortality of MMA and the argument made in the original paper.

calaveraz wrote:
For me this is totally against what Funakoshi intended. So I would not encourage my kids to do MMA.

Some traditionalists love MMA, sole loath it, and some are neutral or disinterested. Some of my own thoughts can be found here: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/what-tma-can-learn-mma

However, I think that’s a separate issue. As I said in the first post, if possible, and whatever we feel about MMA, what I’d like to explore is if MMA inherently immoral based on the arguments put forth by Nicholas Dixon.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

Having read the article, I think the biggest problem with it is that he seems to single out MMA.  If he approached it that ALL combat sports are immoral, then there may be a bit stronger viewpoint to support that depening on the approach.  But, he doesn't really differentiate training in an MMA style approach versus the actual competition of MMA.

For example,  Morihei Ueshiba said this

“As soon as you concern yourself with the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you.”

Having trained in both competitive schools (including mma gyms where some did compete professionally) and non-competitive schools, there is alot to be said about the above comment and the effects of competition (either formally or informally just by trying to outdo other students).

But, I don't think that this just applies to combat sports either.  I think that there is a type of thinking that is in all styles of MA that feeds on negative energy to paint all encounters as "life and death fights" (many RBSD styles do this) or cashing in on ego driven insecurities to "prove yourself" that can lead to the ego getting into situations that could be avoided altogether.  I don't know how many people I have heard make comments along the lines of wanting someone to "try something" so they can "show them" etc.

To me, it is all about intent.  MMA is like a knife.  It can be a wonderful tool to help/protect a person or it can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.  Having met many martial artists of many styles, it comes down to intent.  You can be a bully in any style.  I would suggest that martial arts and MMA is ammoral and the intent and application make it either moral or immoral.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Many good points in that post Kevin.

Kevin73 wrote:
But, I don't think that this just applies to combat sports either.  I think that there is a type of thinking that is in all styles of MA that feeds on negative energy to paint all encounters as "life and death fights" (many RBSD styles do this) or cashing in on ego driven insecurities to "prove yourself" that can lead to the ego getting into situations that could be avoided altogether.

That’s true. In this article I made a similar argument:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/defence-combat-sports

One thing that combat sports are more prone to encourage is honesty and humility, because they have objective testing. There are therefore checks and balances which prevent (most of the time) egos running wild because it’s hard to claim to be the world’s best when you keep getting beaten. Deny your own shortfalls and you can’t improve, and hence will cease to win at a certain level.

These are points that also seek to undermine Nicholas Dixon’s position, because surely something “intrinsically immoral”, by very definition, can’t encourage the development of morals such as honest, humility, … and determination, dedication, goal setting, etc.

There’s a “white crow” element to this argument too I feel. The statement “all crows are black” is proved false the instant a white crow is seen. Nicholas Dixon said MMA was “intrinsically immoral” (that was the point he was making; not that it is immoral, but it intrinsically immoral). Intrinsically means, “relating to the essential nature of a thing”. So, according to Dixon, MMA has immorality as it’s essential nature. So if we see any morality exhibited in MMA, or any morality at all fostered by MMA, then we have seen the “white crow of morality” and Nixon’s argument falls apart.

That does not mean that MMA is entirely moral and all practitioners are paragons of virtue, but it does mean that the claim that MMA is intrinsically immoral is not tenable.

We can also go the other way too and say that, “martial arts develop character”. However, as soon as we see any martial artist of poor character, then the universal truth of the claim is also scuppered.  As Yasuhiro Konishi said, “Karate aims to build character, improve human behaviour, and cultivate modesty; it does not, however, guarantee it.”

Kevin73 wrote:
For example,  Morihei Ueshiba said this “As soon as you concern yourself with the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you.”

I’m not sure I agree with that.

Mark Twain said, “The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.”

Milton also expresses a very similar sentiment, “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed; That never sallies out and sees her adversary; But slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for; Not without dust and heat.”

How can the virtue of courage even exist without a fearful situation to manifest in? How can resiliance exist unless there is a situiation that makes us want to quit? And so on. We need testing to develop true virtue. And two people can come together to provide mutual testing for one another.

All the best,

Iain

Chikara Andrew
Chikara Andrew's picture

calaveraz wrote:

For me this is totally against what Funakoshi intended. So I would not encourage my kids to do MMA.

Hi Marc

I'll pick up on this point as your end resolve is somewhat at odds with mine.

Chikara Andrew wrote:

My kids enjoy karate and as they continue to train they may well wish to explore the competitive elements, if as they grow they decide that they want to push themselves forward, would I support them if they considered MMA, yes of course I would. Would I be slightly uncomfortable, probably, but not from a moral standpoint.

Would I encourage my kids to try MMA? In a competitive environment, no, I wouldn't but that is not because I believe it to be immoral. I just wouldn't like my kids to be there. 

MMA is still a competitive sport, it still has rules and still has a referee.

In the original article I think that Dixon misses this point, this extract is from the very bizarre section where he compares it to BDSM but I have included the full quote in order for the key part to make sense:

Dixon: The only case in which such a defense might be applicable to MMA would be when the contestants are romantic partners, family members, or close friends. Mixed martial arts activity in such circumstances is far more likely to involve sparring, in which the goal is to challenge one another and improve skill, in sharp contrast with actual MMA fights, in which the goal is to inflict maximal damage as quickly as possible in order to win the contest.

It is the statement that the "goal is to inflict maximal damage", this is not the case and whilst I don't really watch UFC I can think of examples I have seen where fighters attempted to submit opponents and only resorted to inflict damage when the opponent refused. Again this is consensual, in a competitive environment with rules, the fighter has the option to tap out.

People who spar in MMA do so in the same way that boxers spar, they train as realistically but safely as possible to prepare them for the fight, the fight however is an all out affair and both fighters expect to be hurt. 

As for Funakoshi whilst I understand where you are coming from I think that at times his "saintly" status among many clouds things. I agree with his outlook on self protection and the use of karate as a last resort, but we are talking here about in the wide world, not a competitive environment between two consenting participants.

Funakoski himself in his youth took part in tegumi matches and arm wrestling, both ways of challenging oneself in a competitive environment. It would appear that he didn't go as far as his teacher Itosu who made and accepted challenges in red light district of Naha. Karate has a less than saintly past! But again these are consensual (to a degree, but less so than by modern standards) matches, albeit I suspect they had far fewer rules than UFC.

What is immoral is for practitioners to test and prove their skill by engaging in fights outside of such an environment, this is the preserve of the playground bully, whether skilled or not.

Regards

Andrew 

calaveraz
calaveraz's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
 Some traditionalists love MMA, sole loath it, and some are neutral or disinterested. Some of my own thoughts can be found here: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/what-tma-can-learn-mma

This was a very interesting article which cleared some points for me. I agree with it in most parts and have to admit the truth about some traditionalists beeing "stuck" in their style. This is also for me the reason to train in other Dojos, visiting your seminars and yes, I have a look at MMA fights and real violence videos as well. I want to understand how this works and what Karate really is. I am just about to begin to understand what fine art Karate is if it is practiced with the right ideas behind.

In so far MMA can be seen as a corrective momentum, which will hopefully reconnect Karate with its roots and make it stronger at the end, because people can see that it has been missunderstood for a long time. But thats maybe the best I can say about MMA. I have absolutly no problem with free sparring and training methods including all aspects of MMA, JJ, Judo or whatever. But I do have, and probably always will have, a problem with the attitude when it comes to "hey come on, lets have a real fight to see who is better". For me it's like (forgive the bad language) a dick-measuring contest. Its part of our nature. I accept it, but MMA somehow exceeds what I can accept. Maybe I am too old or not fixated enough on martial arts to see the reason why I should have to fight another person, risking his and my health, just to prove that I am right. 

Oh btw:

Chikara Andrew wrote:

As for Funakoshi whilst I understand where you are coming from I think that at times his "saintly" status among many clouds things.

I absolutely agree with you on that. They were neither saints nor gods. But letting the full force of Karate and the "taking no prisoners" attitude out of the cage only as the last resort seems a very wise and a very sound idea too me. Btw I also took part in competitions some times "to measure my technique" of course (ho-ho-ho). It was rule bound sports Karate, so to say the children's version from MMA's point of view. When the doctors came to the other guy, to lift him from the floor, I was shocked about myself and what I had done. Luckily he had no fatal injuries, but that really made me think. That day, I realised that the training had turned me into a weapon. And since that didnt play out nicely, I seek safer ways to test my techniques and to improve. The way shown by Sensei Abernethy seems to be more promising. (so do I get a free DVD now? :-) )  

Marc