The shared innocence of cycling and mixed martial arts: a reply to Pho and White

ABSTRACT

Alexander Pho and Benjamin A. White respond to Nicolas Dixon’s critique of mixed martial arts (MMA) through a ‘companions in innocence’ argument. Taking up a counterexample that Dixon is quick to dismiss, the authors argue that MMA techniques are on a par with the ‘pain-leveraging’ tactics used by cyclists and that pressing for a moral distinction between cycling and MMA leads to absurd conclusions about other practices. So, because cycling is morally permissible, MMA is morally permissible. This companions in innocence argument fails. But cycling can be used to develop a better, though only partial, defense of MMA.

KEYWORDS:

• Consent
• legal moralism
• paternalism
• risk
• respect for persons

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Pho and White mention wrestling and football in a footnote, but do not cover Dixon’s arguments concerning these sports (2022, 193 note 2).

2. A reference to the second Roberto Durán vs Sugar Ray Leonard fight.

3. Arthur Ripstein makes this point about gladiatorial contests, but he is less sure of its application to boxing matches (2009, 140–143).

4. Nguyen draws a clear distinction between the intentions/goals of game players engaged in striving play and the character adoption of method actors (2020, 45).

5. Thanks to Paul Gaffney, Jason Holt, Charlotte Peak, and an anonymous referee for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.