Internalism and external moral evaluation of violent sport

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. But see (Dixon 2010) for a moral critique of this rationale for violence in hockey and other sports.

2. See, for example, (Bernick et al. 2015).

3. The terminology ‘coercive minimum’ and ‘differential coercive pressure’ comes from Joel Feinberg and these concepts, along with my argument that we should protect boxers from de facto economic coercion, are explained more fully in (Dixon 2001, 327).

4. For a summary of some recent empirical data supporting the view that football causes cognitive impairment, see (Sailors 2015, 270–73). The fact that the National Football League, which stands to lose a lot of money in lawsuits from its admission, has conceded that evidence clearly demonstrates this causal link is telling. See (Belson 2014).

5. For a provocative argument that the case for restricting boxing on the ground of preemptive paternalism due to the risk of brain damage transfers well to American football, see (Sailors 2015, 270–76).

6. The remainder of this section is a very brief sketch of the arguments presented as a critique of MMA in (Dixon 2015). They are, however, equally applicable to boxing and other blood sports.

7. For an excellent account of the moral goods that arise from boxing and other dangerous sports, see Russell (2005).