It's a dreary, rainy, cold-ish Saturday here in
Montana. While this is a disappointing state of affairs, it does
offer me a chance to blog a little (assuming I'm able to keep myself
away from a little addiction we like to call “Minecraft”). This is longer than a typical blog post, but in order to do the subject justice that's a necessary evil.
Today we explore a particular aspect of
Christian ethics that is very dear to my heart – the ethics of
sport. Not exactly the most common ethical issue discussed these
days, but I think it's important and it's apparently important enough
that Philosophia Christi did a symposium on it a while back. I've
been meaning to address it for a while now and today just seems like
a good time to do so.
Prior to reading this blog, I highly
recommend reading the symposium, which can be found here.
The question is this: are any sports
morally superior to others? Or perhaps more to the point: should
Christians avoid any sports due to conflicts with Christian ethics
created by that sport. In the symposium one author (Matthew Roberts)
takes a soft view against violent sports like football or rugby,
saying that due to potential vices created in both their competitors
and fans the virtues of the sports are probably outweighed. Another
author (Doug Groothuis) is more explicit in his rejection of violent
sports, saying, “Given
the formal deficiencies and defects of football, one ought not play
it or coach it or watch it or own it or support it (through stadium
taxes, etc.). Football reinforces and perpetuates the culture of
violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a
measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world.” Michael Austin addresses some of the concerns raised by Roberts and
Groothuis, but I think I'd like to address them a bit further.
I want to first take issue with some smaller points made mostly by Groothuis before moving on to the larger point that I think both Groothuis and Roberts err on.
Groothuis' paper was not worthy of publication in any philosophy journal anywhere. Throughout the paper he demonstrated quite effectively his lack of knowledge of the subject matter. Groothuis chose to write his paper before performing a simple Google search to see if there may have been an entire field of philosophy that he was unaware of. Seriously - go to Google, then search for "philosophy" and "sports" and see what comes up. Academic journals, books, academic societies, even (as Austin points out in response) a journal specifically for the ethical aspects - all dealing in the philosophy of sport. How this paper got published I'll never know.
Beyond that, Groothuis just doesn't know anything about the game of football. He says:
"Historically, intellectuals have been drawn to write and reflect on baseball. A recent example is columnist and author, George Will. I doubt there is anything of this nature to be said of football. (This, of course, does not imply that no intellectuals like football or than only unintelligent people do.)"
First, given the parenthetical, then what's his point? Second, this is just stupid. How does one define an "intellectual"? Does he not consider the fellow philosophers who wrote "Football and Philosophy: Going Deep" intellectuals? I've seen Groothuis cite Alvin Plantinga in his own work - Plantinga, of course, has made it known that he is a Notre Dame football fan. President Obama has been ripped by certain detractors for being too much of an intellectual and not enough of a realist, and he's a big Chicago Bears fan. The fact that George Will and John Roberts prefer baseball to football is in no way a knock on football's intellectual virtues.
 |
| When's the last time a baseball player was seen doing this? |
But further on the intellectual aspects of football, in no other sport are schemes and plays more complex than in football. 11 men working in unison to achieve a common goal, often with the intent of first convincing 11 other men that they are trying to achieve a different goal (in the case of counters or screens or play-action). Before every play (particularly at the professional level) players are required to assess the other team in order to figure out what they plan to do prior to them even doing it. Mike Leach, head coach for Texas Tech, claims to watch 30 hours of game film each week in preparation for a game just to compete in the intellectual aspects of the game. NFL players are required to know their playbooks inside and out - some of these playbooks are 800 pages - all have their own unique vocabulary ("flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter" represents one offensive play-call in the NFL according to Jon Gruden).
Groothuis and Roberts both make the point that fans celebrate the violence of the sport, which promotes vice in the fans. I would argue that this is not true in most cases. Most football fans do not enjoy seeing grotesque injuries or concussions or the like. Sure, we like good, solid, legal hits, but we don't want to see injuries and illegal hits. I've despised the Vikings my whole life, but when Adrian Peterson injured his knee I neither enjoyed it nor was happy it happened. When ESPN shows football highlights, 90% of them center around well-executed football, often involving no violence at all (in the case of touchdowns, where the defense failed to create violence). Highlight videos like the one I link to below wouldn't exist if it were the violence the fans celebrated.
Groothuis and Roberts both make the point that fans celebrate the violence of the sport, which promotes vice in the fans. I would argue that this is not true in most cases. Most football fans do not enjoy seeing grotesque injuries or concussions or the like. Sure, we like good, solid, legal hits, but we don't want to see injuries and illegal hits. I've despised the Vikings my whole life, but when Adrian Peterson injured his knee I neither enjoyed it nor was happy it happened. When ESPN shows football highlights, 90% of them center around well-executed football, often involving no violence at all (in the case of touchdowns, where the defense failed to create violence). Highlight videos like the one I link to below wouldn't exist if it were the violence the fans celebrated.
Last on the smaller points, Groothuis has the cajones to say that baseball is not only intellectually and morally superior to football, but that it is aesthetically superior as well. He says:
"Baseball is intellectually superior to football, because of the degree of strategy, finesse, and intelligence required to play it well. Football knows of many plays and patterns, but most of them reduce to speed, strength, and coordination--as opposed to intelligence. In baseball, a pitcher with less than a cannon arm (such as Greg Maddox) can be one of the best pitchers in baseball in light of his intelligence in pitch selection, control, knowledge of batters, and fielding ability."
He later says:
"Both baseball and football require athletic skill for their performance, but I venture to say that an expertly turned double-play, a diving catch in the outfield, or a deftly stolen base (particularly of home) demonstrates more athletic and aesthetic excellence than anything in football. Moreover, nothing in any sport has the dramatic effect of a grand slam home run, especially in a close game."
Again, I have no idea how this paper got published. Greg Maddox was able to pitch the way he did because he was smart, yes, but also because he had an INCREDIBLE amount of coordination and was able to do things physically with his wrists, fingers, and shoulders that most humans cannot. There is a very good reason that Maddox is also a scratch golfer and it is not that he lacks pure, raw, physical ability. What is the difference between good pitch selection and a proper play call or audible in football? Is there any difference in terms of the mental demand? What about "fielding ability" in baseball screams that it doesn't come down to "speed, strength, and coordination"?
I can appreciate that a double-play can be aesthetically pleasing. But really? A stolen base? It's a dude running from one base to another. I'm as big a baseball fan as most people, but let's be realistic - would anyone on this planet (other than Ricky Henderson's mom) rather watch a highlight reel of all of Ricky Henderson's stolen bases than this highlight reel of Barry Sanders' runs?
Ok - enough with the stupid stuff. I actually lost a bit of respect for Groothuis as a philosopher after reading this paper. Moving on.
Both Roberts and Groothuis agree on the main objection to football: its violent nature. Roberts lists collisions in football equaling 1600 lbs of force, concussions, ACL tears, etc. These are seen as bads. Not only are they bads, but they are the result of violence: a bad that is intrinsic to the game of football. When violence and its resulting injuries happen in basketball or baseball, the bads are contingent bads, which is to say that the sports can be (and regularly are) played without the bads occurring. The same cannot be said of football. Furthermore, the sport promotes vice in its fans, who are taught to celebrate this violence, and thus to celebrate bads.
The thing I find odd is that Groothuis says, "[f]ootball reinforces and perpetuates the culture of violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world." In every form? What about, say, in the context of a Just War?
"The killing of any creature in God's image, no matter how debased that creature may be, is a mournful thing. Osama deserved death, and received it in a just war; however, it is tragic that a man would dedicate his life to evil and receive the penalty of death for his earthly sin." - Douglas Groothuis
But wait...wasn't...wasn't that Groothuis supporting violence given that it was of a particular type in a particular situation? So maybe the Christian doesn't have to oppose EVERY form of violence, as he says in the paper. In their papers both Groothuis and Roberts seem to assume that all violence is bad in some moral sense. They assume that all violence is created equal.
I would argue that this is mistaken, even (especially?) on the Christian worldview. Biblically, Old Testament characters participated in many, many violent acts and were praised for them later in the New Testament. Obviously there will be some who follow thinkers like Yoder, Hays, or Hauerwas out there who say the N.T. ethic changed and promotes peace exclusively. To that I will respond by pointing out that the Hays/Hauerwas notion of N.T. ethics also would prohibit Christians from participating in the military or even the police - it is an ethic of radical non-violence (Hays goes as far as to compare military recruiters to prostitutes). You really want to go that route?
But the more pertinent point is from the N.T. itself. In Acts 10, Peter is called by God via a vision to go meet with a Roman Centurion named Cornelius. Throughout the course of the story, Peter comes to the understanding that gentiles should be accepted into the Christian community the same as Jews. Luke takes care to praise Cornelius as being an upstanding man. At no point in the narrative does either Luke or Peter (as recorded by Luke) criticize Cornelius for being a military man. Keep in mind that he was a Roman soldier - this means that in all likelihood any war he would be called by his profession to fight would not have been a just one. Peter didn't see this as even being important enough to mention - he was just happy to accept him into the Christian community. Luke again in Luke 3:14 tells of a group of recently-baptized soldiers who were told by John the Baptist now that they are Christians they should "[not] extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay." No mention of anything being wrong with their profession or the violence it requires.
So it's fair to think the Christian is at least warranted in thinking that not all violence is a bad. So there must be something about violence that makes it bad. What is it? Well, I would argue that it has something to do with causing needless harm to creatures created with the imago dei. Certainly hunting (esp. for survival) isn't morally wrong. But it is violent and it does cause them harm. But they don't have the imago dei, so it's ok. So the issue at hand has to come down to the question of whether or not football causes needless harm to its human participants (excluding Gus, Bonzo, and Air Bud).
 | |||
| No one knows if concussions contributed to Seau's suicide |
Consider this study, commissioned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, on the health of former NFL players. In a survey of 3439 former NFL players, it was estimated (based on numbers from the general population) that 625 would be deceased. Only 334 were in fact deceased. That's about 53% of what would have been the case if the health of retired NFL players was even average, much less below average. The conclusion has to be that all that time of eating right and working out an extraordinary amount in order to be able to handle the physical toll of the sport actually makes players healthier on the whole. At the very, very least this should mitigate any perceived bad in the violence. I would argue that since the result of the game makes players healthier it cannot be seen generally as causing needless harm to its participants and thus cannot be considered a bad at all.
This argument can (and should) be applied to any violent sport when discussed from an ethical standpoint. MMA is probably the most controversial in this respect right now. A new documentary (below) is in the process of being made about the convergence of faith and MMA. Many MMA fighters at the highest level are professing Christians (Jon Jones and Benson Henderson are both outspoken Christians and the champions of their respective weight classes). Given the extreme conditioning that goes in to this sport, in the long-run it participants are likely to be healthier for having competed than they would be had they not. If my definition of "bad violence" is right, then MMA should be perfectly acceptable on the Christian ethical worldview as well as football, rugby, or virtually any other "violent" sport.
If Groothuis and Roberts want their points based on the violence of the game to hold up they must first provide a working definition of a "bad", then make one of "bad violence". Until that happens, and they provide a good reason to prefer those definitions over mine, all arguments about anything inherent in the game promoting vice in either the players or the fans are moot. Christians should feel comfortable coming home from church on Sunday and watching football...all day long.
