The Pros And Cons Of Banning Boxing

Thus, whether or not the case for legal prohibition is determinative, many reasons have been given for moral concern about boxing. It is perfectly appropriate for those who share such moral concerns to refuse to support boxing, to urge others to refrain from supporting it, and to advocate strong reforms in the practice of boxing. (Simon, 2001, p.355)

John Mills, a moral philosopher, “feared state intervention into private affairs because he thought that “some projects are more worthy than others, and liberty is needed precisely to find out what is valuable in life, to question, re-examine, and revise our beliefs about value”” (Leclerc & Herrera, 1999, p. 427). When given the choice to participate in boxing, athletes have the right

to control their own lives and what kind of risks that they are involved in. In terms of athletes participating to increase their socioeconomic position, this is still within the will of the athlete, leaving them to examine their own beliefs on values. Individuals who have authority cannot tell certain individuals from a lower class that they are not allowed to participate because they may have been coerced into the sport. A society should have the autonomy to assess moral dilemmas and come up with a solution based on their own moral values surrounding health and safety. Forcing these moral dilemmas from authoritative figures will stunt human’s abilities to think for themselves, causing larger discussion surrounding individualistic thoughts.
By so tightly situating ourselves in specific communities, individuals cannot freely and rationally choose to believe in communitarianism. After thinking about an individualistic libertarian approach to the ethics surrounding boxing, it is hard to take on an approach that is truly your own. By giving individuals the chance to choose without the coercion of others in the community, the moral decision of participating is true and fair. Boxing becomes immoral when athletes autonomy is taken away by the community and authoritative figures, and put in the hands of people who believe that they have more power and a better understanding of the sport to make a rational decision for another human being. Lastly, the main point of boxing is not to intentionally harm the other athlete, but to score the largest amount of points against his/her opponent. Points in boxing are not judged off of how much pain you inflict to your opponent but on perceived force, location and precision of blow, so injury is just a by product of the sport, supporting that boxing is not inherently violent in nature.
Conclusion
To conclude on if boxing should be banned as a sport, one thing needs to be considered, autonomy.

The liberty of an individual in sport is the number one value that should be respected to make boxing morally adequate. Autonomy should be respected in sport because ones body should always have freedom from external control and influences. All arguments for paternalism can be explained in a justified way to prove that boxing is unethical and unsafe, but this does not mean that paternalism is the best way to bring about safety in boxing. If boxing were to be banned, violence would become more prevalent outside of sport, and proper boxing technique and skill would slowly disappear. Keeping boxing as a sport will create a safer environment for this type of activity to occur, and also create a fair ground for each sport that involves violence to stay available to athletes. Because boxing does involve violence, this does not imply that it is immoral to participate and that the freedom to participate should be taken away from athletes. Boxing provides a safe environment, a place to create a career, and is an institution for sporting entertainment. By allowing boxing as a sport to continue, this will create a safe and fair atmosphere with the freedom to allow all individuals to participate with proper

consent.