Boxing and moral judgments
- This topic has 55 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The current front-page article is essentially one person expressing their moral distaste about a certain type of sport. Is it really worthwhile taking such a position? Boxing obviously predates capitalist society and if people want to continue such an activity in socialism it would be up to them, not us.
Sure we could comment on how market imperatives push people into dangerous occupations or something like that, but that is not what the piece is doing.
While appreciating that it is hard to get a nuanced message across in a few words, a lot of these front-piece articles make the thinking of the party look more simplistic and moralistic than it actually is.
The only one on the front page!
Read under where it says “Legalised Brutality”. Is that showing on your screen? You might need to scroll down if viewing on a phone.
I cannot believe some of my comrades think boxing will still exist in socialism!
Fun fact: Boxing was much safer before boxing gloves were invented. This is because bare-knuckle boxers avoided punching the head, whereas, when they started wearing gloves, they couldn’t stop punching the head (because the gloves cushioned the blow to their fists).
“I cannot believe some of my comrades think boxing will still exist in socialism!”
But that’s just you projecting your moral judgements onto other people.
I’m no boxing fan either, but like anything else, it will exist in socialism if people want to do it, and won’t if they don’t.
I hope there will be provisions in place to stop people doing vile and harmful things, like trophy hunting, badger baiting and other such atrocities.
At least all parties involved in boxing, once money has been abolished, would be doing it voluntarily, whereas other animals have no say in what humans do to them.
If socialism permits trophy hunting, I will expect it to also permit me to shoot and kill the hunters. That will be me doing what I will need to do!
“I hope there will be provisions in place to stop people doing vile and harmful things, like trophy hunting, badger baiting and other such atrocities.”
I share the same sentiment. Socialism isn’t a society without rules or means of enforcing them. If the political community decided, probably by means of a vote, that there would be a ban on such types of activity then there would be. And that would entail some kind of mechanism for enforcing the ban against those that might try to get around it.
I mean, we do assume, don’t we, that people establishing the new society, even though it can’t be done until there’s a majority, would be forward-thinking people, who empathise with suffering, hate cruelty and carnage, and want to protect nature.
‘I mean, we do assume, don’t we, that people establishing the new society, even though it can’t be done until there’s a majority, would be forward-thinking people, who empathise with suffering, hate cruelty and carnage, and want to protect nature.’
I certainly agree with that.
Of course, both those who used to be rich louts, and those who were lumpen louts, would be entering socialism with the rest of us, so there will have to be means of restraining such people from causing harm, as they will suddenly see everything as a free-for-all in the worst possible ways.
It defeats me that anyone can imagine that boxing (i.e. two human beings in a ring trying to knock each other senseless) could be a part of the civilised society that socialism will be. It’s the capitaalist equivalent of the Roman arena. In socialism we won’t have the arena and we won’t have boxing. If that’s judgemental, so be it. Some things at least we should be able to make judgements on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.