Is Football Ethical?
We’ve known about boxing for a while now. It’s been inescapable ever since Muhammad Ali’s head trauma reduced his lightning-quick repartee to a Parkinsonian stutter. You just shouldn’t have a sport in which knocking someone senseless is a good way to win. (Yes, yes, there are other ways to score points, and the sport is reformable, perhaps, but really only if head blows are penalized, I’d say. Hitting below the belt is illegal–why protect the genitals but not the brain??)
Now it’s inescapably clear that football has long-term neurological sequelae that include syndromes that mimic Alzheimer’s and ALS. (See today’s Boston Globe for one such report.) This is trickier–it seems that getting clonked in the head is unavoidable in the sport. Helmets don’t seem to help. And the problem isn’t only among the pros, where the guys clonking each other are often 300-plus lbs. of solid muscle, but even among high schoolers.
My question isn’t whether football should be banned. My question is whether, knowing this about the long-term risks, it is ethical to watch it, knowing that those brilliant young athletes have a many-times multiplied risk of truly horrific neurological complications in their futures. Should we switch the station and try to develop an interest in soccer instead?
One point of distinction–of course football players, like any athletes in vigorous sports, risk immediate and long-term orthopedic trouble, which can be very serious. (And I’m not against any risk–I follow women’s college hoops, where blown ACL’s are a common season-ending injury. Think also of the rate of Tommy John surgery among pitchers.) But I can’t help but think that life-threatening neurological damage falls into a different category altogether. And, sure, football provides a path to personal excellence, the chance of a college education (at least in college programs that actually educate their football players–but that’s another post…) and the prospect of huge sums of cash for the lucky few who get to the NFL. But is any cost worth the possible big payoff? Should we stop watching men take such chances purely for the entertainment we derive from it? A related question–would you let your kid play, knowing what we know now?
(I now will take cover under my desk to avoid being clonked in the head by fans of a sport beloved by millions…)
Soccer has been associated with an increased risk of ALS too.
Second attempt at link.
Server is: http://www.nytimes.com
Sub-directory is: /2005/03/01/health/
File name: 01als.html
Ms. Fullam, it is wise of you to hide under the desk as those BC, ND, and other fans will soon go after you. ”
“Should football be banned?” is too inflammatory and unrealistic. Ask instead, “Will football be reformed? If yes, how?”
Questions like these have been asked about boxing. It hasn’t been banned, but there has been a long decline in fan interest taken up by other forms of entertainment, including other sports.
Here’s an article in The New Yorker by Malcolm Gladwell from October of last year that compares football and dogfighting, concluding that violence is inherent in both. But he says
I’m not quite sure how to go about doing an ethical analysis. Those who play football, particularly professional football, do it for the most part (I presume) because they love the game. I don’t think anyone puts in all that effort just for the money. So one question is just how much one could realistically expect even if a relatively large number of fans decided not to watch on ethical grounds.
Another question would be what level of risk is unacceptable for an individual to take to pursue a career.
Yet another question is whether one’s first obligation isn’t to take care of one’s own health (and the health of one’s family). If a person smokes, doesn’t eat right, doesn’t exercise, is overweight, and so on, worrying about the health of football players would seem to be a far lower priority than worrying about oneself.
If you dig deeply enough, you can probably come up with an endless list of ethics concerns that potentially effect just about every decision you make during the day. Do the stores where we shop treat their employees well? Do the manufacturers of the products we buy exploit workers overseas? Should we buy steak, or should we buy hamburger and give the money saved to feed those who can’t afford meat at all?
So it’s difficult, I think, to make a compelling ethical case against watching football when there are so many other concerns that in my opinion are of greater importance. Nevertheless, henceforth I promise never to watch another football game. Of course, the last one I watched the Rose Bowl of January 1, 1969, when I was a student at Ohio State and we beat the USC Trojans (with O. J. Simpson as quarterback) 27-16.
Ask instead, “Will football be reformed? If yes, how?”
Historyman,
According to Gladwell, the problem is not the big knocks in the head, which could probably be controlled without to much difficulty, but the hundreds of little jolts and shocks that are inherent to the game. You’d have to play something akin to touch football to bring those under control.
Ms. Fullam,
Not only is college and professional football dangerous. There is much reason to reflect on the corruption, both monetary and educational, that is so pervasive and deeply entrenched in college football.
That said, I have to confess that I do enjoy watching college games on TV. My head tells me, though, that thee’s something wrong with me, in this as in a number of other respects.
Little can be done.
First we went to two platoon football. 50 some odd years ago.
Then more specialization.
Then bigger faster athletes in a smaller pool of big colleges.
Big colleges control the game and money rules what they do -see the formation of bigger BCS conferences, etc.
I think we’ll see some technology improvement in eqipment but we’ll also see more and more resultant problems because bigger stronger faster more specialized athletes will rule the game and TV money will make it desirable.
Football watching seems to be a male-bonding ritual. What could take its place? No fan I, but haven’t you noticed how eyes light up at the thought of FOOTBALL?
My first encounter with moral relativism occurred at the Gregorian University where the moral theologian from the U.S. defended boxing but condemned bull-fighting, while the one from Spain defended the latter and condemned the former. And this among Jesuits!
Perhaps only males feel it, and only some of them, but there are associations: cool crisp weather, fresh apples, tight spiraled passes, the race to catch one, … But we mainly played touch-football.
I believe that Texas would secede if football were ever banned.
If only it were an alternative to war! Would it be ethical then?
My first encounter with moral relativism occurred at the Gregorian University where the moral theologian from the U.S. defended boxing but condemned bull-fighting, while the one from Spain defended the latter and condemned the former. And this among Jesuits!
What a happy thought! Two “moral” theologians and both wrong! At bull fighting at least one can cheer for the bull and hope for the best.
ISTM that the underlying ethical question here is: What makes risk of injury morally tolerable? Amount of risk and amount of possible injury would no doubt be part of the answer. But it seems to me that there is a moral position implicit in the question, v.z,m that some ends do justify some means. In this instance, if enough good (increase in physical and emotional strength, feelings of personal accomplishment, giving pleasure to others, etc.) are great enough then the risk becomes tolerable.
It’s just another example of how “the end does not justify the means” is not really a rock-bottom moral principle in Catholic ethical systems.
I forbade my sons from playing football forty years ago. We did not have the data we have today but just the fact that some youth became paryalyized convinced me that the risk was not worth it. This did not stop my enthusiasm for the game. I might have grown a bit by no longer shouting “kill him”, but there is an excitement that baseball and other sports cannot match. Certainly the gloryifying of the big hit makes a savage of the player and the fan. As one top running back put it: “Every play is like a heavy weight fight.” So there is a similarity to boxing. There are so many facets of the game which are quite graceful and skillful. Small steps have been taken to lessen the savagery. Players are not allowed to play with concussions and forced to retire when they are too recurrent. More changes are coming and needed.
I played football in high school. So did four of my five brothers. We loved the game then, and we still do, though Lisa is right that there is a link between football and long-term neurological impairment. One brother was good enough to play football in college, while two others made the switch to rugby, which is arguably even more dangerous than football. (Me? I switched to philosophy, a different kind of contact sport. ;) ) Ann makes a good point about how risk analysis should be part of the calculus underlying Lisa’s ethical question, though I confess to breathing a sigh of relief that my son chose to forgo football in high school and to play soccer and tennis instead. (As Felapton notes, however, soccer is also not without its neurological risks.)
Soccer!!?? What happens when the player butts the ball with his head?
Do we want to consider that for all the equality required in high school and college sports (via Title 9), which have created and funded women’s teams in everything–but football. Or am I wrong about this. If I am right, why? Women are just too smart to get embroiled in this? Or, there are no volunteers?
I hadn’t thought that heading a soccer ball was liable to cause brain injury too, but Felapton’s link indicates a higher rate of ALS (or ALS-like disease) among soccer players as well. Would it be possible to reform soccer to limit head injuries, and still have an interesting game?
I’m curious about rugby, a very rough sport but played without protective padding. Does anyone know of studies done of rugby players in this regard? Does the armor-like protective gear worn by football players actually make them more prone to injury, perhaps due to a false sense of security?
Much of the beauty of football, as far as I can tell, lies in the strategy of the game and in the spectacular grace of runners and receivers–now I know I’m speaking heresy here, but could touch football or flag football be similarly beautiful without the harm to the athletes? But that wouldn’t begin to touch the kinds of corruption noted above.
Life is a risk. All of life. It always and everywhere involves a danger of injury.
I once broke a finger catching a Nerf football. A NERF — which is essentially a sponge!
Indeed, abolish football altogether, and you would still have people suffering injuries constantly — like the time when I wrenched my knee at Mass while genuflecting before sitting in the pew.
All of life is a risk.
Why don’t health insurance companies charge extra for people who do this kind of sports?
Life is a risk. All of life. It always and everywhere involves a danger of injury.
Bender,
So would you approve of people playing Russian Roulette?
In youth sports, in terms of serious injuries, girls gymanstics has the most followed by basketball and soccer (based on the number of participants).
The number of high school deaths from cheerleading was almost identical to the number of deaths from football between 1982-2002 – there were 4 times as many basketball related deaths and more than twice as many track and field related deaths. Cross country was almost as deadly as football.
Are those “ethical” sports?
Lisa, while you raise a point that is important (and, I’ll admit, very uncomfortable) to think about, isn’t it a bit strong to say that it is “inescapably clear that football has long-term neurological sequelae that include syndromes that mimic Alzheimer’s and ALS”? I mean, do you have a scientific study that controls for other factors (use of steroids and other drugs, for instance) to support your conclusions–especially about high school football?
If there is significant scientific evidence to show this, then you present a real moral problem. Flag or touch football ain’t going to cut it. The beauty of football (at least for myself and my circle) is that it combines the most sophisticated chess-match strategy one might imagine (such as seemingly innumerable permutations of blitz schemes and strategies for picking them up) with utter brute caveman force (say, of fullback and linebacker meeting in the hole on the goal line: one to stop the game-winning touchdown and the other to clear the way for it). Graceful athleticism is part of the package, yes, but hardcore football fans will get just as much pleasure from a game in the rain or snow that significantly limits that aspect.
There is something that excites me just thinking about all of this (especially as the season gets closer) but thank you for forcing me to take a hard look at it from an ethical point of view. I suppose I’m afraid I might not like what I find if I look too hard.
Sean,
Lisa is talking about apples, and you’re talking about oranges. The case against football (see here and here for Malcolm Gladwell’s thoughtful and entertaining view) is that it causes hidden and cumulative brain damage, not that the number of observable injuries and deaths are too high on the playing field. Football may be similar to cigarette smoking. The risks of suffering a serious or fatal injury while smoking may be acceptably low. But the cumulative impact on the body is unacceptably negative.
If what Sean writes is true, then we have to look at the injury report. How do the sports relate with reference to injurires?
I read this post upon returning from watching the opening game of the Notre Dame Women’s soccer season (the 4th ranked women won 1-0 against the Minnesota Gophers). I have often wondered about the long range effects of headers in soccer. When I watch the men open their season on Monday I will have the same worries.
Football players are now held out of practice and from games if they have suffered concussions as part of an overall attempt to rein in long range potential head injuries. That being said, I will be in the stands when Notre Dame plays Purdue in two weeks. Elsewhere it is called football; here it is known as liturgy. Every sport has its risks. My daughter, age 6, broke her collarbone playing touch football in the front yard of a neighbor many years ago.
By the bye: I think a moral case can be made for the immoral nature of professional boxing because, as my professor of moral theology at the Gregorian University so aptly pointed out: the end of the match is to render an opponent unconscious.
What this thread needs is an informed (sports) commentray from say Frank Deford.
What this thread needs is an ethician who has all the basic principles. But there don’t seem to *be* any. Sigh. So how to you weigh risk against benefit and where’re the cut off point? Does business ethics have anything to tell us here by analogy?
I think what this thread needs is a bookie.
It’s a thought-provoking thread and it has me thinking a bizarre thought: perhaps sports are really all about both excellence and danger. Part of deciding which sport to participate in, or bet money on, is the amount of danger that feels like fun. Stock car racing, boxing, that guy who died a few weeks ago trying to climb K2 and ski down from the summit–the gamble is part of the fun.
Years after the Olympic gymnast Shun Fujimoto stuck his perfect landing on his broken leg to lead his team to the gold, he is supposed to have said that he would not do it again. But his pain ensured his legacy. It’s part of the toughness fans value in athletes because it adds to the vicarious thrill that is itself a part of the pleasure of betting on athletes.
Now anyone can be a sport’s hero. You may not consider this a sport. But this guy got the idea from Sports Illustrated.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/22/2010-08-22_this_guy_deserves_a_hand_rockland_dad_highfives_his_way_into_record_book.html
Bill Mazzella
Isn’t there something ethically odd about telling your sons not to play football and at the same time enjoying watching other people’s sons playing the game?
If men want a sport that is both competitive and challenging, why not chess? I doubt anyone will say that chess causes brain damage. And to stay in good physical condition you can always work out.
I am a bit late to this party, and I remain a hopeless Giants fan always hoping. But Christianity Today earlier this year had a very courageous (considering their audience) and provocative cover piece on this topic, specifically challenging Christians.
The central essay was by Shirl James Hoffman, who has a new book out discussing these many ethical and religious — because Christians are so entangled with big-time sports — issues.
I cited him and the relevant links in a piece I did:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/time-for-a-separation-of-church-and-sports/
“It’s a thought-provoking thread and it has me thinking a bizarre thought: perhaps sports are really all about both excellence and danger.”
Kathy –
I fear you’re right. But it’s a matter of letting *the other guy* take the risks. When I was in high school I did a bit of tumbling (I had to jumpover 4 or 5 girls crouched on the floor and flip over in mid-air to land on my shoulders just past them. It scared the bejeebers out of me, but I did it because the teacher said, “Go on, you can do it”, and I was a good little girl, so I did.
I really wonder about all those little boys who have to play little league baseball because their mom or dad tells them to. Think of all the stories about parents screaming at and fighting coaches and umpires. Come to think of it, my lawyer was awarded the best player trophy as a member of the team that won the national title one year. I’ve known him since high school and I’ve never heard him even once talk about those glory days. I only know about it because his sister told me. I mean — who really cares?? The players or the fans?? (I’ve seen some fanatical fans in my life. So are the Saints REALLY good for New Orleans? I wonder. But, yes, I’ll cheer for them :-)
I think we should also note that circuses are dangerous and ballet is not the safest of the arts.
A little off topic, but the NFL is, I think, the only major sport where the players’ salaries generally are NOT guaranteed. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s also the most entertaining/competitive/popular sport in the country. Seems likes it makes the most use of free-market principles. But I wonder if the constant threat that if you’re gonna hesitate to make/take a big hit because of fear of injury, team’s can easily find someone who won’t hesitate.
SIDEBAR: East Coast folks — There’s trouble brewing in the Caribbean that’s headed towards the East Coast at the moment. Take care.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at1+shtml/144823.shtml?basin#contents
ballet is not the safest of the arts
Ann,
I don’t know if there are any good studies to back it up, but I believe dancers are thought to be above average when it comes to health and longevity. The kinds of injuries dancers are prone to are in no way comparable to cumulative brain damage.
One reason why I prefer watching mixed martial arts fights to viewing boxing matches is that MMA bouts include a lot of ground action, which diminishes the number of head punches, thus favoring the safety of the fighters. In addition, it seems to me that MMA referees are generally quick to stop a fight, which also redounds to the well-being of the participants.
I don’t believe that it’s necessary or good to try to eliminate “male-bonding rituals” (to borrow Joseph Gannon’s apt characterization), but, certainly, it’s not hopeless to attempt to make MMA, boxing, and football more health-compliant by persuading athletes and fans alike to accept additional safety measures.
“I believe that Texas would secede if football were ever banned.”
Is that a veiled wish or just a passing bit of whimsy? Be VERY careful how you talk about states that are south of the Midwest and east of the Mississippi!
Should football be banned? Of course not. Prohibition is typical a failure.
So what to do?
When I was a kid (1965) my mother would not let me play “organized” football. She thought it was way to rough and dangerous. I was allowed to play baseball and was pretty good at it. But I lost interest (and a couple front teeth) in organized sports as time went on dropping out of them entirely during High School. Of course I did become a week-end warrior in softball, basketball, and soccer in my 30s and 40s. And I do look forward to the beginning of the college football and basketball seasons. In all of this I suppose I am a pretty typical male.
It seems to me that what we should do is have a “mandated” collection of injury data and follow-up studies of health problems related to sports including youth sports. Maybe we need an “OSHA” agency regulating sports including little league. As the data accumulates parents won’t be allowing their kids to participate in sports because of the danger to their children and the result will be a natural decline in the inherently dangerous sports.
But isn’t Freud right after all? There is an aggressive part of *all* of us that we mostly keep hidden, even from ourselves. Right? Tell the truth now, when was the last time you passed an accident on the road and didn’t look around for bodies? Oh sure, maybe it’s a friend and maybe we ought to stop to help, and we at least want to say a prayer for the injured . . .
Many ethicists and Christians make the distinction, as Paul and the ancient world did, between athletics and sports, and running the good race etc.
I think people are avoiding the question Lisa raised:
If I can make a provocative analogy, one could make somewhat the same moralargument against watching football as the legal argument against possession of child pornography. It’s lending support to an enterprise that results in harm to those involved in it. Yes, of course there are a great many differences, which I don’t think need to be pointed out. But it does seem true to me that watching football, and cheering on your favorite team, is lending your support to men engaging in high-risk behavior. Clearly there is a point beyond which it is immoral to participate, even as a spectator, in an enterprise in which people injure themselves significantly, no matter how voluntarily. I can’t imagine people would approve of televised knife fights, for example.
David Gannon
I fear for other parent’s children and work to minimize the violence. For my children it did not come to ethics. I was not willing to take the slightest risk of their being paralized in a game more likely for that to happen. I am more civilized watching the game now while still a fierce fan. I accept losses better now and will speak to people right after the game when the Giants lose than wait till Wednesday.
On the other hand, while I enjoy chess I find too many chess players snobbish and obnoxious. Especially the champions. While I realize the illogic many chess persona argue by their behavior that football is more humane.
Further, I know many people (snobs) who abhor hockey and football but do not know how to simply say hello to others.
Finally, I love the commercia where the woman (I know not like you , Lisa) who remarks: ” I love baseball”…”Touchdown.”
Have fun with this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQYAD-KSd1E&feature=player_embedded
So would you approve of people playing Russian Roulette?
I’m pretty sure that pointing guns at opposing players and pulling the trigger is already against the rules, and would constitute unsportsmanlike conduct. In addition to a 15-yard penalty, I’d think you would also get an ejection from the game.
Bender,
In Russian Roulette, you point the gun at your own head.
Well then I guess the penalty would be delay of game if there was a bullet in the chamber. In any event, I’m pretty sure it’s already against the rules.
On a broader note, seeking to intentionally injure an opponent is against the rules in every sport. If it is serious enough, the player will be banned from the sport by the league. Or even criminal prosecution. If the authorities do not do something about it, the players themselves will police the situation.
A vigorous physical struggle is perfectly acceptable and ethical, both to do and to watch, even if injury might result. Purposely trying to hurt someone is seen as wrong by everyone involved, both to do and to watch. Toughness is fine and good, but thuggery is not.
On a broader note, seeking to intentionally injure an opponent is against the rules in every sport.
Bender,
How can this be true of boxing, in which the goal is to hit someone in the head often enough and hard enough to knock him out?
I read the history of the Ultimate Fighting Championship on Wikipedia. Here’s a sample:
Clearly, there is consensus that this statement you made is applicable only within limited parameters:
Do those in charge of professional sports have a duty to attempt to minimize, say, concussions? Or is does your statement of the ethics of vigorous struggles exempt them from all safety efforts?
Looking at professional football as a profession rather than a sport, are those who employ football players, like every other employer, responsible for the working conditions their employees must endure? What would be a tolerable risk of cumulate brain damage in, say, bus drivers, insurance salesmen, or high school principals?
David N, –
I had Direct TV and finally got so sick of the repulsive commercials for the “extreme fighting” that I got a different service. Those beasts did everything but try to gouge out each others’ eye. You wouldn’t believe the brutality unless you’ve seen just how extreme it is.
A psychologist friend who specialized in studies of violence told me that seeing violent behavior makes people tolerant of it and makes some people act out. ALL the studies bear that out. Why don’t the clergy preach against it? Of course, sin isn’t a common topic anymore. So thanks to Lisa for raising the issue.
(Yes, I slow down at accidents. No, I don’t stop, gawk and pay for the view and cheer. OK. so there are many parts to our personhood. We must take responsibility for the ugly part and make the civilized side dominate.)
The violence of football spills over into real life, as everyone knows. Football players are entitled to assault others off the field, and they often do.
I’m surprised lawyers don’t use the concussion defense to get their football player clients off.
(E.g., Mark Hacking, who killed his wife, Lori Suarez, in Salt Lake City, had several well-documented brain incidents. He played football as a child, and as a young man he fell off a roof onto a concrete platform below.)
Sean, I think the problem with football isn’t the “acute injuries,” which are prevalent in many sports, as you point out. It’s the longer term, insidious risks that are truly inherent in football (and maybe soccer). With soccer, the solution is pretty simple: make the head like the hands — an illegal form of contact. Oh sure, the players will whine the way hockey players whined when they were told to wear helmets. Over time, things will simply change. Football is much harder to change. Risk analysis is hard to do, especially considering how much better off more than a few players are for having played the game. Certainly, football is no more deadly than smoking or unsafe sex, to name two other things that are rather difficult to outlaw. There could be changes such as a maximum weight for players — players are much bigger now on average than they used to be, and some players are recruited almost solely for their size. The other thing is to bench players for a longer period of time when they have documented head injuries, which is starting to happen. I also suspect that fewer kids will be encouraged to play football.
David,
OK – What about the cumulative cost and inconvenience of all injuries? I personally suffer from arthritis in the knees, feet and neck from years of playing “safe” basketball and “safe and healthy” running. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts there are vastly more injuries, including life changing ones, from sports like running, skiing, and soccer. Is it ethical for us to watch 275, 6’9 basketball players pound up and down the court knowing that many will be delbilitated in their old age after years of knee and hip replacements?
Also, why should there be a distinction between the long term concussive effects of football and the short term, sudden, death and debilitation that comes in other sports. Is it more ethical to watch a sport where a few dozen men may suffer long-term brain injuries than one where hundreds will suffer sudden brain and/or debilitating skelatal injuries? Do you know what sport results in more traumatic head injuries than any other? Boxing? No. Football? No. Drum role – soccer! Also, there is a lot of evidence that soccer also has long term brain injury issues. A study of Norwegian national level soccer players found that one-third of the players had central cerebral atrophy, and 81% had mild to severe deficits in attention, concentration, and memory. Studies of amateur soccer players in the US and Europe show some of the same things. In addition to this, there is a lot of evidence that suffering a sudden injury can also have long term effects later in life.
Sorry – but this whole anti-football stuff is not based on facts, or probability or any rational thing. The people who are pushing it themselves probably participate in, entertain themselves with or promote or at least don’t care about any number of activities that are probably more dangerous. They will wax indignant about the poor football player around a swimming pool in their backyard before they take their precious cargos to soccer, gynamstics, or lacrosse, but no one ever says – “Hey, are you trying to kill those kids?”
Face it – this is because this is football. The pastime of the unwashed (predominantly male) masses. It involves physical contact and direct struggle, and, yes violence. It is uniquely American, very masculine, encourages fierce emotions, competitive impulses, and rivalries. In short, all the stuff that progressives find yucky. Many progressives can’t resist their natural tendency to make sure no one is having a good time unless it’s something they approve of. God forbid they succeed, or we’ll all be stuck with that two-hour snooze-fest (and statistically more dangerous) soccer.
Gerelyn
What evidence is there that football players are more violent? You hear about them because, big surprise, they are football players. The public school teacher, or dentist, or professor who beats his wife or gets in a bar fight doesn’t make the national news.
Hi, Sean:
Maybe you’re right. Maybe football players are no worse than dentists.
(A contestant on the current Big Brother is a former football player, in trouble with the law for beating up a guy. http://tiny.cc/ucfhd )
During the Hacking case, I saw studies done at BYU and/or University of Utah about concussions leading to violent behavior.
Sean,
Are you testy all the time? Or just when you post here?
Concussions, along with head injuries, lead to impulsive and unpredictable behavior. One needs to be very careful not to jump on the supposed downside of an activity that one is predisposed to dislike anyway while ignoring similar downsides from other legal activities. This is what Sean is getting at, I think.
So, re the level of violence — guess what, I bet there are studies that correlate military service with violence. That doesn’t mean the activity causes violence, so much as it is likely that violent people gravitate towards particular kinds of activities. For all you know, maybe that person is less violent, overall, as a participant in football than he would have been not participating in football.
I don’t like these kinds of arguments, if it isn’t obvious.
Not a football fan, but I don’t hate it. (I bought my parents their first color t.v. to watch the first Super Bowl.) But it’s fatuous, imho, to pretend the culture of violence and the incidence of concussions do not lead to violence off the field.
(I wonder if any parent would rather have a college-age daughter pass out drunk in a football players’ fraternity house or in a dental students’ fraternity house.)
One link: http://www.ramsgab.com/2010/05/05/side-effects-of-violence-in-the-nfl/
From that:
“Now, off the field, if a player is in an argument in a restaurant, bar or with a significant other and they are pushed to their breaking point – should we be surprised with the conditioning ingrained by the football culture comes through? One could point to a few alleged incidents in the past year or so to make it clearer. Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger allegedly has serious issues with violence against women as he was accused of rape twice within a year. Late WR Chris Henry of the Cincinnati Bengals reportedly jumped on the back of his girlfriend’s truck as she was driving away when they were arguing. There are plenty of examples within our own St. Louis Rams. Steven Jackson was alleged to have beaten up his pregnant girlfriend. Lawrence Phillips had many problems including driving his SUV through a field of football players who had just beaten him at a game. Phillips reacted violently when he was confronted with a losing situation. Additionally, Dominique Byrd stabbed someone at a bar with a broken bottle during an altercation. There are plenty of examples of violence off the field by NFL players that could be sited and there are certainly more that do not see the light of day.”
While we’re at it let’s talk about the morality of tailgating. Nothing like driving defensively on the way to the supermarket at 9:00 am on game day to avoid hitting drunk fans wandering off the sidewalk and into the road –or simply deciding to cross the street, light be damned..
David
Testy? Me? Never. I am just having fun.
I just find it funny that liberals target things they don’t like for “cultural” or political reasons, and dress it up as moral high dudgeon.
A few months back it was Walmart. Posters were bashing Walmart for any number of ethical failings when they are probably buying their cruelty-free coffee at a cafe that treats their baristas as bad or worse than the evil giant treats its employees. In reality, they don’t like Walmart because it’s Southern, lower-middle class, commercial, and has connections to conservative politics. Heck, in my perfect world they’d shut down every Whole Foods Market for the cultural eco-hucksters they are, but who am I to begrudge someone the pyschic pleasure they get from thinking their lettuce fertilized with chicken poop is healthier than mine from the Stop-and-Shop.
The second part of my argument, that I think Barbra is is missing in her description, is that all these things involve the balancing of benefits and harm, just as all human activity does. Again, the safety and non-violence police always focus on one issue or element of a thing to condemn it, and if they can, outlaw it. Why do paople play and watch football in the first place? Why do they ski, or play soccer (OK that one I don’t get), or have a swimming pool? Just think of the wonderful memories we can have on Thanksgiving (sorry, we need to work on that one – Native Amercian sensibilities you know) stuffed with tofurkey, and watching the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. Oh, the stories we’ll share in years to come.
Look at the progressive attack on “competition.” Kids can’t win and lose. Competition is bad. It results in hurt feeelings and lower self-esteem. You know what – that’s right. It does result in hurt feelings. But it also results in learning to struggle, in excellence in performance, in dealing with disappointment, in trust, teamwork, and grace under pressure. Competition isn’t bad, competition just is. What makes most of these thing good or bad is how we handle them.
I think the first evidence that our culture is regaining its common sense will be when we bring back dodge ball.
“I wonder if any parent would rather have a college-age daughter pass out drunk in a football players’ fraternity house or in a dental students’ fraternity house.”
I honestly can’t believe you wrote that and expect to be taken seriously.
As a parent of a college-age daughter, I think any place where she is allowed to get drunk beyond consciousness is a high risk environment whether it’s overseen by prospective dental students or athletes — the risk here is not a function of a culture of “violence” but a culture of ethical norms and a perception of what could happen if for some reason they got caught. In that respect, again, it’s not the proclivity to violence that is most germane, — it’s that many athletes have concluded based on experience that there are no consequences to anti-social behavior. A very big distinction, IMHO.
Indeed, maybe this is what the Craig’s List Killer lacked — a sense that he would get caught and punished severely. It certainly wasn’t a medical student’s immunity to violence and impropriety.
Sean, now you’re just venting. Yes, of course, cost benefit and all that, but in reality, the solution here is to inform parents often and early about the risks of football so that organized football has a big incentive to find ways of ameliorating the risks.
Sean, you asked for this. You really did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQqkQKde_kU
To Ann’s methodological point: I’d say that there exists no comprehensive set of ethical principles that can be rolled out to asses a given question. Even the “Georgetown mantra” (Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Justice–which sound nifty if you chant them a la Gregorian chant…) is a useful hermeneutic, but the principles themselves are so broad as to make direct application of them ITSELF a matter of moral reflection. Even the cardinal virtues lack the kind of direct applicability that makes anything like ethical algorithms problematic. (Thomas’ 4 were, he thought, rooted in a moral anthropology that worked for him, but isn’t widely accepted today. Who’s got a concupiscible appetite that’s neatly divided from one’s intellect, e.g.?) I like Jim Keenan’s 4 cardinal virtues construed relationally (Prudence, Justice, Fidelity and Self-Care) but still regard them as a device to help us think thoroughly more than a methodological slam-dunk, (if you’ll pardon another sports-metaphor.)
That said, I do think there are a number of salient questions that emerge from discussions like this that ARE useful in figuring out how to ponder about whether watching (supporting) football is a morally-good endeavor.
1. Life is indeed full of risk, and we take risks in light of presumed benefits. Firefighters, police, etc., risk their lives daily–but for the common good, not entertainment. Is devastating neurological damage a worthwhile price for athletes to pay merely for our entertainment?
2. Is neurological damage different qualitatively or only quantitatively from other kinds of forseeable long-term harm to athletes?
3. Soccer, it seems, could easily (if not happily) be reformed in light of evidence of neurological damage to players. Once FIFA’s on board, the soccer world changes. Can football be made NEUROLOGICALLY safe for athletes?
4. If so, would anybody still watch, or is the physical brutality of the sport (and so continual head trauma, at least to linemen,) an intrinsic part of its appeal?
5. If we paid enough, I’m certain that people would play Russian Roulette for cash. My question–SHOULD WE WATCH? Football is different from RR (and boxing,) in that neurological harm is not a goal, but an unhappy side effect. If it is a substantial and ineliminable side effect, what does it say if we are willing to ignore devastating neurological harm to football players?
What are some other salient questions we bring to this?
And Sean–oh please. Do you really think that evidence of neurological damage to football players is simply a matter of “moral high dudgeon”? And shall we settle this question one-on-one on the basketball court? (Oh, and my knees aren’t what they used to be, either. The spirit is willing, though the joints creak…) :-)
It may depend on our view of humanity. If we concede that a fallen human race is ubiquitously violent, then the rationale for football and boxing becomes more understandable.
Taking the historical view, football and boxing were promoted in the 19th and first half of the 20th century because they were so much safer and cleaner than the alternatives, like brawls and rock-throwing between neighborhood youths, frequently of differing ethnic or racial or social groups.
Society has changed, though, and the notion of the Italian neighborhood and the Irish neighborhood jamming the local boxing emporium to cheer their respective champions while they maul each other above the belt is somewhat quaint now.
“One reason why I prefer watching mixed martial arts fights to viewing boxing matches is that MMA bouts include a lot of ground action, which diminishes the number of head punches, thus favoring the safety of the fighters. In addition, it seems to me that MMA referees are generally quick to stop a fight, which also redounds to the well-being of the participants.”
Stephen, I’ve watched only a few matches, but one that soured me involved “ground action” – one fighter was able to pin his opponent’s arms and shoulders with his knees, and sat on his chest and punched and forearmed him in the head unmercifully – at least 15-20 times. It was very hard to watch. Apparently it’s within the rules, as the referee made no attempt to separate them.
Re: Ultimate Fighting
I wouldn’t necessarily call “ultimate fighting” or similar “cage matches” to be legitimate sport, much less entertaining.
But boxing is different. Yes, while the object of the sport does include putting one’s fist in another person’s face, even to knock them out, there are rules. There is a difference between a fair fight and an unfair one. For example, putting razors in your glove or intentionally punching in the groin or going all Mike Tyson and biting the opponent’s ear off — all these are unfair, i.e. unethical.
Sean,
What I found annoying about this thread is the amount of scoffing. Surely one can imagine/acknowledge there are types of competition it would be unethical to watch. In fact, John McCain led the way in a campaign in which 36 states banned “no-holds-barred” fighting. Was he a lily-livered progressive to do so? Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that there is a principle involved — some things shouldn’t be encouraged, even by being a willing spectator — and then simply argue that football isn’t one of them?
I certainly wouldn’t ban football if I had the power, but I think a better case can be made against boxing than against cockfighting (and maybe dogfighting — I didn’t think Michael Vick needed to be sent to prison).
Whole Foods, by the way, has lots of bargains. If you can shop at several stores, Whole Foods is not at all a bad place to go as one of them. Their store brand items are high quality and inexpensive. I was, however, sorely annoyed when they stopped carrying Bounty paper towels. They now stock only — actually, I’m not quite sure what they are, but they are a poor excuse for a paper towel.
Surely one can imagine/acknowledge there are types of competition it would be unethical to watch.
Of course. But the issue was football primarily. Blood sports, a la the Roman gladiators, would be unethical to watch. Dogfighting and cockfighting too. Anything that is purposely cruel in that way. But, again, the issue was football, not these things.
“I’d say that there exists no comprehensive set of ethical principles that can be rolled out to asses a given question. ”
Lisa –
A seminarian friend once told me (but couldn’t give me a reference) that Thomas had a moral decision procedure that goes like this”
1) Consult the Church’s moral teaching.
2) If it is unclear or otherwise problematic, consult the theologians.
3) If they disagree and none of their opinions seems best, consult someone who has actually faced the same (or very similar) ethical problem.
4) If that doesn’t work either, do what you want to do.
Of course, this doesn’t help the theologians and bishops in the first place, but I think the last two steps are interesting. (They sound like Thomas to me.) This of course doesn’t explain *why* such a procedure might work, but it’s better than nothing.
The big problems with moral decision procedures are that 1) so often problematic moral situations are not similar enough to analogize, and 2) sometimes one doesn’t know which ethical principle should trump the others. For instance, if a terribly poor young athlete has no way out of a violent culture, perhaps he is justified in becoming a professional when a middle-class kid wouldn’t be. Ah, the wisdom of “Judge not”.
I dunno.
Here’s a TNR review of a book about the history of U.S. boxing. Not a pretty story.
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/lords-the-ring
After writing my post on this thread I happened to see a segment on “Real Sports” (HBO) about the high incidents of ALS (Lou Gerhrig Disease) among soccer players (the study was done in Italy) and professional football players in this country. A research scientist has evidently found the link by which toxic proteins in the brain seep into the spinal column. Were I more competent with the computer I would provide a link but it is one of the features in this month’s edition of Brian Gumbel’s program on HBO.
September issue of GQ verrrry interesting. “The NFL 2010 Preview”. (I didn’t know players tried to scratch eyeballs, etc., in a dogpile after a fumble.)
FWIW – I watched the Ray Mancini – Duk Koo Kim bout on live television. It was an amazingly brutal fight, in which they took turns beating each other unmercifully, round after round. Kim collapsed a few minutes after the fight was stopped, went into a coma, and died.
The article that Ann linked above has a couple of paragraphs that justify boxing:
“The Sullivan-Corbett fight, staged eight years before the dawn of the twentieth century, was a glimpse of the modern future. It was held inside a stadium illuminated with electric lights in the heart of an urban center, in this instance New Orleans. The behavior within the ring was regulated by the (allegedly) civilizing rules devised by the Marquis of Queensbury: The fighters wore padded gloves, fought three-minute rounds followed by one-minute rest periods, and were allowed ten seconds to recover from knockdowns. The behavior outside the ring was supervised by police officers upholding the municipal ordinances of New Orleans, which, always ahead of its time in the celebration of the flesh, had sanctioned Queensberry fights two years earlier. The city’s former mayor had no qualms about announcing the fighters’ weights before the match.
“The glorious era of illegal bare-knuckle boxing in America was over. Just three years earlier, on July 8, 1889, Sullivan had defended his title against Jake Kilrain under entirely different circumstances. The fight was held on turf, in a ring created for the occasion on the rural Mississippi Coast property of a sawdust proprietor named Charles Rich. Under the London Prize Ring rules, rounds lasted as long as both men stood, which meant they could “steal a few minutes to glare at each other, tacitly agreeing to slow down, return to their corners for a drink, and regain their strength,” Elliott J. Gorn tells us is his classic account, The Manly Art: Bare-Knuckle Prize Fighting in America, which appeared in 1986 and has just been republished in an updated edition by Cornell University Press with a new afterward by the author. Since the Mississippi governor had placed a $1,000 bounty for Sullivan’s arrest, the champion fled Mr. Rich’s land soon after dispatching Kilrain in seventy-five rounds. “
Regarding football: I’m old enough to have grown up in a culture in which kids in the neighborhood would gather and play pickup games of tackle football. I don’t doubt that it could be dangerous and serious injuries would even occur (we certainly didn’t wear, or even permit, any equipment), but it’s a whole different level than gigantic, fit, roided-up and armored combatants smashing into each other with incredible force, as is seen in the NFL or Division I college football.
Jim P. –
I don’t see how those paragraphs justify boxing, especially given the author’s reference to the match as “regulated by the (allegedly) civilizing rules devised by the Marquis of Queensbury”. Granted those rules were an improvement over bare-knuckle matches lasting as much as 112 rounds.
“I don’t see how those paragraphs justify boxing, especially given the author’s reference to the match as “regulated by the (allegedly) civilizing rules devised by the Marquis of Queensbury”. Granted those rules were an improvement over bare-knuckle matches lasting as much as 112 rounds.”
Hi, Ann, I’m just pointing out that the line of thought in favor of boxing espoused by the paragraphs I quoted, were very much the commonly accepted justification for boxing in its heyday for white Americans (probably the 1920s thru 1950s). Boxing was much more widespread – amateur boxing flourished at a level that would be a big multiple of what it is today. I’ve read that in the 1930s, the most popular sports were baseball, boxing, college football and horse racing – times have changed.
In my mostly-white suburb of 75,000 residents and a pretty good park district, I don’t think there is a single boxing gym. That would have been unheard of in 1947.
On the other hand, if you want to learn karate, there are tons of options. Kick-boxing moves constitute a popular aerobics class at health clubs (or that was the case 10-15 years ago – no doubt they’ve moved onto something else now).
… [Trackback]…
[...] There you will find 37414 more Infos: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=9683…