I like things that cause terrible suffering.

January 1, 2016 7:07 AM

I really like watching MMA and Rugby. Both, particularly the former, engender a situation where thousands of kids put themselves at risk (especially of CTE) trying to 'make it'. The sports' governing bodies do little or nothing to compensate for the long-term damage those pursuits cause. Does it demonstrate a lack of integrity that I still support those sports despite knowing the negative impacts they have on people?

Is it the same thing as watching and enjoying Woody Allen films despite the high likelihood that he is in fact, a terrible creep?

posted by hTristan to Society & Culture (12 answers total)

It's arguably worse. N.B. I will be spending the day watching college football.
posted by JPD at 7:36 AM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

It differs from watching films that terrible people profit from because more people are directly physically harmed by the sports.

Whether watching is ethical comes down to whether you believe people should have the opportunity to make risky, unhealthy decisions for themselves in the unlikely hope of rewards, when statistically they are not going to profit from it (but others will). If you're more of a "free choice! And there shouldn't be a minimum wage either!" type, then it's entirely ethical. If you're more a "kids shouldn't hurt themselves to make other people money, I prefer a nanny state" type, then it's unethical.
posted by metasarah at 7:53 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Does it demonstrate a lack of integrity that I still support those sports despite knowing the negative impacts they have on people?

This is a tough row to hoe. It's basically impossible to exist in the western world without directly contributing to awfulness and suffering somewhere. I think in this case there's not much you can do beyond simply weighing your enjoyment of these sports, vs how bad you feel that they are causing bad things to happen.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:58 AM on January 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

I know nothing about MMA, but rugby has done more to protect players certainly than American football. I would feel much more comfortable having a kid playing pro rugby than one playing pro football - one of the things rugby emphasizes early is developing safe falling and tackling techniques. When I started playing, we spent more time learning to fall safely than learning to tackle safely.

Amateur rugby, like amateur football, is where my greatest safety concerns are. But there is pretty widespread agreement that American football is more dangerous than rugby and in fact rugby might be able to help American footballers become safer.
posted by arnicae at 8:21 AM on January 1, 2016 [5 favorites]

I would say that your examples are roughly equivalent; in both cases, you like things that are problematic. And it's okay to like things that are problematic! From the Social Justice League's "How to be a fan of problematic things:"

Liking problematic things doesn’t make you an asshole. In fact, you can like really problematic things and still be not only a good person, but a good social justice activist (TM)! After all, most texts have some problematic elements in them, because they’re produced by humans, who are well-known to be imperfect.

The post on the SJL's website is borked, but the full article is available via the Wayback Machine.
posted by zebra at 8:23 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yeah, rugby in general is an extremely safe sport (former amateur rugby player here; ironically, one who once broke his arm playing rugby, but eh). There's an enormous focus on safety, and ironically the lack of padding versus American football means that players are generally much more careful in rugby (since they know they don't have much padding) compared to football. Personally, of all the rugby players I know, I'm the only one who was ever injured; and even then it was a fairly minor injury.

Now, MMA is an abattoir, as is American football. But maybe sticking just to rugby can be a way for you to enjoy watching people slam in to one another while feeling somewhat less icky about it.
posted by Itaxpica at 8:43 AM on January 1, 2016 [4 favorites]

Do you support the right to drive? More teenagers are killed every year in car accidents than die playing football. I do not presume to tell you how you should answer your own moral/ethical question, but I do think that if you are concerned about this sort of thing, that there are way more sorts of these things that you tacitly approve on a daily basis without realizing it.

I happen to fall into the category of letting people make their own decisions after being fully informed of all the risks and rewards and after transparency. While I wear my seatbelt EVERY time I get into a vehicle, I do not think there should be a law about it. I can make my own decisions thank you.

So, to me, if the participants in MMA or Rugby or American football are aware of the dangers and risks and then choose to freely participate, there is no ethical or moral issue with watching and tacitly supporting. If these players were not aware of the risks but you were, then I would say that supporting the sports under those circumstances is questionable.
posted by AugustWest at 10:55 AM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

"I still support those sports despite knowing the negative impacts they have on people"

Yes, imo, it demonstrates at the very least a lack of integrity.
posted by Lay Off The Books at 2:13 PM on January 1, 2016

Sorta--but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If you look too closely, nearly everything is traceable to bad stuff. We are all complicit.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:02 PM on January 1, 2016

My boyfriend is a big MMA fan, and his feelings are that MMA is less damaging than sports like boxing or American football in the long run because you're not sustaining head injuries at nearly the same rate. Many fights end through submission in ways that don't involve concussions, and even though there are head shots, fights are shorter and less frequent and gloves are less hard than in boxing.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:39 PM on January 1, 2016

If someone told me they had stopped watching football, etc, because they were uncomfortable with the thought they were encouraging head injuries, I think that would be a perfectly respectable, even laudable position.

If someone told me they thought watching football was objectively unethical, and that anyone who watched it lacked integrity, I would roll my eyes, move on, and probably make a mental note not to take that person too seriously.
posted by deadweightloss at 10:05 AM on January 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

AugustWest: Do you support the right to drive? More teenagers are killed every year in car accidents than die playing football.

I'm having trouble articulating it, but something seems different here in the way the choice is being made to participate. (and I suppose that's true whether the choice is by parent, by participant, or both.) Joining a team is in many ways like going to school. There are authority figures and authority structures that imply (or state) this is a good thing for your/your kid's development.

I don't know enough about the actual risks to have an opinion about these sports, but I don't think it's clearly right to *just* measure the ethics based on the risk.
posted by spbmp at 4:19 PM on January 2, 2016