IS FOOTBALL VIOLENT?

Most sports are by nature physical activities; many are physical

contests between opponents (football, hockey, boxing, and wrestling,

for example). But where does one draw the line between the merely

physical and the truly violent? The more I consider the issue, the

more difficult it becomes.

I guess a good place to start would be Webster's New Collegiate

Dictionary, which defines 'violence' as follows:

1: (a) exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in

effecting illegal entry into a house) (b) an instance of violent

treatment or procedure

2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or

profanation: OUTRAGE

3 (a) intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action

or force <the 'violence' of the storm> (b) vehement feeling or

expression: FERVOR; also: an instance of such action or feeling (c) a

clashing or jarring quality: DISCORDANCE and 'violent' thus:

4: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a

'violent' attack>

5 (a) notably furious or vehement <a 'violent' denunciation> (b)

EXTREME,INTENSE <'violent' pain>

6: caused by force: not natural <a 'violent' death>

It's also insightful to note the etymology of 'violent', coming

by way of Middle French from the Latin 'violentus'; akin to the Latin

'violare', 'to violate'.

Before I begin the actual discussion on violence, it's useful to

note that, as a society, we do seem to think there is something to be

said about intentions. That is, when evaluating an incident ethically

we take into account the intent of the perpetrator as well as the act

itself.

Consider: the law defines a spectrum of categories of homicide,

ranging from involuntary manslaughter all the way up through murder

one. The act in each case is the same (the causing by one party of

another's death); it's the intent which defines the difference. For

example, if I were being inattentive while driving my car down the

street, or happened to be operating at an excessive rate of speed, and

as a result accidentally struck someone and killed them, I would be

arrested and charged with, say, involuntary manslaughter by reckless

use of a motor vehicle. I would receive, perhaps, a 5 year prison

sentence, or even be let off on probation if it were my first

'offense', and I got an easy judge.

If, on the other hand, my boss fires me and I plot to exact my

revenge by running him down in the company parking lot, I would be

charged with murder one and probably receive a life sentence. The

difference in these two incidences is not the act (in each case I

struck and killed an individual with my car), but my intentions. In

the former case it was never my intent to strike anyone, much less to

kill them; in the latter, that was exactly what I intended to do.

On the other hand, neither does the intent alone define the act.

Perhaps it is my intent to cause the death of my former employer, but

maybe I bungle the attempt and he survives. In that case, I would be

charged with attempted murder only. Or if I chicken out at the last

minute and don't make the attempt on his life at all, but my intent

becomes known, the charge would be conspiracy to commit murder. In

both of these cases the intent -- to cause the death of my boss -- is

the same as in the murder one case, yet both attempted murder and

conspiracy are considered by law to be of lesser seriousness than

either involuntary manslaughter or murder one.

So, it would appear, we must take into account BOTH the act and

the intent when evaluating a given incident.

On to sports, then. To begin with, we have several different

definitions of violent and violence to deal with. (There were also a

couple of definitions I didn't include because they were irrelevant to

this discussion) Definition 1a, 'exertion of physical force so as to

injure or abuse', would seem largely to be dealing with intent, rather

than the act itself. Here we see physical force applied in the

attempt to cause injury or abuse. On this definition, it does not

matter whether the attempt is successful; the mere fact that the

intent was there and the attempt was made is sufficient to brand the

incident as violent. This definition would cover both murder one and

attempted murder, but not conspiracy, since, in that case, though

there was injurious intent, there was no accompanying exertion of

physical force (the actual attempt was never made).

Applying this definition then to sports, does football qualify as

violent? No, for although there is most certainly 'exertion of

physical force', by and large (with some individual exceptions), this

physical force is not applied 'so as to injure or abuse.' The left

tackle may apply a particularly forceful and physical tackle on the

quarterback, but his intent was merely to prevent a pass completion,

not to injure or abuse. (Of course, if it WAS the left tackle's

intent to injure the quarterback, then on definition 1 it would

qualify as violence).

Definition 1b depends on the definition of 'violent', which is

discussed below.

So much for definition 1. What about definition 2 -- 'injury by

or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation'? It is perhaps

time to note that injury in these definitions does not of necessity

have to be physical in nature. Thus, for example, though rape is a

forceful and physical act, the injury suffered by the victim is

normally much more emotional and psychic in nature than physical. Yet

that does not make rape any less violent.

Definition #2 strikes me as a much broader or more liberal

definition of violence than #1. While definition 1 seems to focus on

the physical, 2 would appear to extend the definition to include both

injuries of other than physical nature and means other than simple

physical violence. Coercive evangelism, as an example, is probably a

case of infringement or distortion, while rape is almost certainly a

case of profanity against women.

Note that there are also a number of important differences

between definitions 1 and 2. To begin with, definition 2 discusses

the injury itself, rather than the act which caused it (note that the

subject of definition 2 is 'injury', whereas in 1 it is 'exertion of

physical force'). Here, also, intent is apparently irrelevant to the

definition. It is the injury itself which is considered violence, not

the means by which the injury was achieved. Thus, for example, a

televangelist might employ ethically questionable methods for

accomplishing conversions -- coercion or distortion or something else

-- yet it is highly doubtful that his conscious intent is to injure.

Nevertheless, under this definition, he would still have done violence

to his audience.

Does football qualify as violent under this definition? At first

glance, at least, it seems plausible. If we are, in definition 2,

concerned not with intentions or methods, but only with the end

result, then one might be tempted to conclude that an injury is an

injury, whether intentional or not, and is therefore violent. Note,

however, that definition 2 does not define violence merely as injury,

but as injury 'by or as if by distortion, infringement, or

profanation'. Since it is doubtful that football contains any of

this, it does not seem to qualify as violence under definition 2.

Definition 3 switches track entirely from either 1 or 2. While 1

and 2 deal with issues of ethics, 3 is concerned only with the quality

of a phenomenon or act. When we speak, as definition 3 does, of 'the

violence of the storm', we are referring simply to the storm's

strength and destructive power; we are not attempting to pass moral

judgment on either the storm's intent or its result. Indeed, it seems

silly to even speak of getting morally indignant at a violent storm.

While the results of violent storms are often to be lamented, we

certainly do not become ethically outraged at the storm. Thus,

definition 3 is largely a descriptive definition.

Again, one may encounter a description such as 'he loved her with

a violent love', but again this is largely a descriptive device for

expressing the strength of the love with which he loved her. There is

no ethical condemnation, implied or otherwise, in such a description.

Is football violent under this definition? Perhaps. But even if

it is, it is only trivially so. Those who feel that football is 'a

violent sport in which people go out and intend to hurt others' could

not have had this definition in mind since this definition involves no

issues of morality. It is a descriptive definition only.

Let us look further, then, at Webster's definition of 'violent'.

Definition 4 defines 'violent' as 'marked by extreme force or sudden

intense activity'. Under this definition, football would seem

certainly to qualify, involving as it does many instances of extreme

force and sudden intense activity. But so, for that matter, does slam

dancing or mountain climbing. Again what we have is a largely

descriptive definition. Certainly one would not want to hold that

extreme force or sudden intense activity was inherently immoral. In

order to decide whether or not the 'extreme force' and 'sudden intense

activity' in football were immoral, we would have to go back to

definition 1 or 2.

Definitions 5a and 5b are closely related to 3a and 3b, and are

largely descriptive. Again, in this descriptive sense, football

could, seemingly, be considered 'violent'.

Definition 6 returns to a discussion of causation and, as such,

relates to definition number 2. In this case, however, in

contradistinction to 2, there are no ethical or moral issues involved;

6 is once again largely descriptive.

So where do we stand? IS football violent? It would seem that,

on certain definitions, it is. Those who believe it is are correct,

provisionally. But, unless one accepts their premise that football is

a sport in which 'people ... intend to hurt others', it is violent

only trivially and in such a manner as to involve no issues of ethics

as regards its violence.

With all this in mind, then, I offer the following criteria for

judging the violence of a sport. Note that, where I use 'violent' and

'violence' I am assuming either definition 1 or 2, the only

definitions which involve issues of morality.

1. Does the sport itself (apart from the motives of the

individuals participating) have hostile intent (e.g. boxing)? That

is, is it the goal of the sport as a whole to inflict injury or abuse?

2. Apart from the sport as a whole, are the intentions of the

participants violent?

3. Assuming there are violent intentions on the part of the

individual participants (criterion #2 above), are they pretty much an

inevitable occurrence, or are they avoidable? In other words, human

nature being what it is, is the situation into which the sport places

a participant such that it is difficult for the average human being to

avoid developing hostile intentions, or is the problem simply a lack

of self-control on the part of the player? Put another way, 'it is

inevitable that temptations come, but woe to him by whom they come.'

Are the individuals' violent intents the sport's fault, or are they

more due to lack of restraint and discipline on the player's part, a

failure to control his reaction to a given situation?

If the answer to 1 is 'yes', or the answer to 3 is 'it's the

sport's fault', or both, then I would say the sport is in itself

violent. The issue under consideration in question 2 is, by all

means, a cause for concern, but an affirmative response to #2 alone is

not sufficient cause for judging the violence of a sport. And keep in

mind that even if one answers 'no' to #2, this not does mean that the

sport as a whole is not violent. In other words, even if #2 were

'no', this does not mean #1 could not still be 'yes' (a sport could be

violent even if there are no violent intents on the part of its

individual participants).

Though this discussion has concerned itself largely with the

question 'Is football violent?', it is equally applicable to the

larger issues of violence and morality in general. The 3 criteria

given above could easily be generalized for use in ethical evaluations

of any instance of violence or violent activity.

Thus, to come back, after a rather long and arduous detour, to

the issue that prompted this discussion, I would certainly say that

there are both moral and immoral ways to bring about conversions. If,

in my zeal for evangelism, I apply unduly coercive persuasion

techniques which in effect force an individual to get saved, then

despite my good intentions I have possibly committed a violent act.

If a Christian ministry employs ethically questionable techniques,

then it's my duty to make it aware of that fact and, if it refuses to

desist, even perhaps to withdraw my support.

And if the scoring of points in a sport is achieved through

'inappropriate means' then we should probably refuse to participate.

I think in this case, however, there is the additional question of how

inherent these 'inappropriate means' are to the sport. In this

respect, this discussion parallels that of Christian involvement in

fantasy role-playing games or Christian rock or indeed nearly any

other subject one would care to name. Is the game itself (or the form

of music) inherently evil? Then by all means as Christians we must

refuse involvement. If, on the other hand, the game (or the music) is

itself morally neutral, and it's only the acts of individual

participants which are at fault, then perhaps it is possible as

Christians to participate without compromising our Christianity.

One caveat to bear in mind: the preceding discussion was based

entirely on the definitions supplied by Webster's New Collegiate

dictionary for 'violence' and 'violent'. No consideration was given

to the question of these definitions' adequacy in such a discussion.

Calvin Culver

Computers for Christ - Chicago


Index of Articles of Interest    Home

  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 |216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | 298 | 299 | 300 | 301 | 302 | 303 | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 |316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333

These articles are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.  Redistribute freely with this link intact. NB:follow the respective authors copyright instructions!

Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions

Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD

BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages


Our sponsors:   W8MD sleep and weight loss center