sawyl | Arguments against fighting

While the arguments are well rehearsed, I thought it might be fun to look at the twists and turns in the arguments surrounding the BMA's new campaign against mixed martial arts fighting.

The initial claim on behalf of the BMA is that this sort of fighting is wrong because of the harm it inflicts on the participants:

Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as 'human cockfighting'. It can cause traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures.

The standard response, today offered by the British National Martial Arts Association, is that no harm can occur because the participants have given their free and informed consent. The argument then becomes one of consequences:

Large amounts of money can be earned by participants, promoters and others linked to ultimate fighting, but no amount of money can compensate for permanent brain damage and premature death.

But this opens the way for a charge of inconsistency. If other sports result in greater levels of injury among their participants, they too should be on the list of sports to be banned, if the position against MMA is to remain consistent. Once again, the argument shifts:

This kind of competition hardly constitutes a sport - the days of gladiator fights are over and we should not be looking to resurrect them.As doctors we cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place.

But this seems to be a move away from consequentialism and on to something closer to a deontological justification. The argument seems to say that where the goal of a sport is the deliberate infliction of damage, then the action is wrong, but when the damage occurs as a byproduct, the action is right.

While this line of argument foils the charge of inconsistency, it also seems to act as a universal acid, undermining the BMA's authority. For as long as the argument remained consequentialist, then it seemed reasonable to accept that a doctor might have greater insights in the potential damage caused by fighting. But having abandoned that ground, they then run into a philosophical mire and become bogged down in questions of right and wrong.

I feel a bit bad about being quite so down on the BMA's line: I actually think that the basic idea is a good one, I just disagree with their current set of arguments.