|
But this is where objectivity and subjectivity commingle. The violence in competitive sports is between consenting people and is subject to sets of rules, traditions, and limitations, some of which are for safety's sake. And we're back to the social contract. What happens when a competitor breaks one or more of these? Is that undesirable too? What would be made of a boxer who constantly hits below the belt (or bites ears) or a karate competitor who constantly strikes with lethal force?
I would argue that "kill or be killed" is an objective concern because I think the act of killing is one that is a stressor (i.e. it is undesirable). Let's say someone had to kill another person just about every day for the rest of their life to protect their family, would they not find that undesirable? Do you know anyone in the world who would not at least find something uncomfortable about that? Think of the act of killing and of the consequences of not doing it. Does this not exist outside of an individual's personal thoughts on the issue? Is this not something that would affect all human beings regardless?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|