As a former high school athlete that had to hang up the cleats because he was never good enough to play at the Division I level, I was always interested in the physical sports. I was never a fan of play soccer or basketball because I was always the one who ended up getting penalties for being overly aggressive. I was interested in the sports where you can hit. I was an avid football player, lacrosse player, and wrestler during my time in high school and I couldn't wait to have that pure enjoyment of hitting someone or getting hit. The adrenaline level is nothing I have experienced in a long time. As we look at John Stuart Mill, he talks about freedoms such as experiments of living that supposed to allow and encourage human improvement. However, when we look at sports such as football, hockey, boxing, and now UFC, we see time and time again the effects of head trauma and gruesome injuries that result in complications later in life. So are these sports really experiments of living that encourage human improvement or are they harm to others, especially those playing the game?
 |
| Making a block in my playing days |
When we look at John Stuart Mill, he is a staunch supporter of freedom. A particular freedom that he expands upon is the experiment of living. Experiments of living are acts or anything that you do where you can learn from and decide whether this is harmful to you and you should stop or it just does not work anymore. John Stuart Mill though does say that experiments of living
and “The liberty of the individual must be this far limited; he must
not make himself a nuisance to other people.” When we interpret that, it means that we can do anything we feel works toward our human improvement without causing harm to others. We can look at harm as if I am harmed when my ability to pursue my life as before and in
comparison to others is significantly curtailed. We can look at sports such as football, hockey, boxing, and MMA in this way. While they may pursue this experiment of living and cause harm to themselves, if they cause harm to others where they pursuit of life as before and in comparison to others is significantly curtailed, then it is not an experiment of living.
 |
| John Stuart Mill |
In sports today, especially football, there has been a great deal about concussions and the severity of how it is affecting players later on in life after they have left the game. 2000 former NFL players have sued the NFL for damages that they have received from playing football and believe they should be compensated, especially for disability payments. Players that have been experiencing brain trauma believe it was the NFL's responsibility to inform them of the consequences of serious blows to the head and not blow off the fact that concussions can lead to effects down the road. While these players believe that it was the NFL's responsibility to inform them, aren't they responsible for their own body, especially since they chose to participate in a sport so brutal. Other sports like boxing have greats who are now effected by brain injuries. Muhammad Ali is an example of a great who is now crippled by Parkinson's disease. While these players have been injured do to the sport to the point where they are feeling the side effects later in life as well as they may have harmed others who are now dealing with the same problem, does that mean that these sports have no cause for human improvement as well as harm others and should not be allowed?
 |
| SI sees the repercussions as well |
My answer is yes that they have no room for human improvement but they are experiments of living because these men chose to play a sport that was violent, whether they knew that it would cause damage later in life or not. In the present day these athletes now have a choice whether they should still play or hang up the pads for good in order to not risk further harm and some do but many still do not and are willing to take the risk for the love of the game. While sports do have value when it comes to lessons learned through sports as you grow up, there is no human improvement within sports because sports is meant for the sole reason of entertainment and for the people who are deeply involved it is a way to make money. While many men a long time ago could not see the effects of football, they are not at fault and have a reason to be upset. Although they chose to play their prospective sports, they did not know that there was going to be side effects later on in life because they were never documented. These men are now lessons for people who still choose to play and are wary of the side effects because they can now infer what can happen when they have multiple concussions or broken bones. There is now light on the sport where men can make their own decisions if they want this to effect them for the rest of their lives and it can now effect how future generations choose what sports they play and when is the time to stop.
While I agree with your argument that sports are experiments of living in that the athletes who participate in these specific sports "show" the rest of us the violence and the side effects of their activity, I disagree with you when it comes to their impact on human improvement. Through examining the negative side effects and the devastating hits that occur throughout most of these "violent" sports, officials, researchers, and in some instances, the public have called for more restrictions and better equipment to ensure that these "violent" sports become "safer." For example, in light of what has come out regarding the negative effects due to football, mouth guards are now mandatory and implementing fines towards unnecessary "brutality," such as helmet-to-helmet contact. Even the introduction of harder helmets as opposed to the older leather ones. It is through these experiments in living that we are able to improve what is already in place.
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job of breaking down the effects of participation in violent sports and applying the action of participating in such sports as experiments in living. However, I feel you miss a large part of what an experiment in living really is. An experiment in living is not only any action, which in preforming, "you decided if it is harmful to you", but an action which teaches and furthers society.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I would argue that the participation in violent sports are experiments in living as they teach society the effects of excessive head trama and how to treat/ prevent such effects.
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job connecting John Stuart Mill’s theory to your own life and to our present day culture. I don’t agree with your statement that sports have no room for human improvement. Sports encourage human improvement. Sports push people to become faster, stronger, more strategic and a team player. Any athletic competition is a test of human improvement. An Olympic athlete, who doesn’t medal, can compete in the next Olympic games and improve his performance. I agree with mdcor on the idea that athletes are experiments of living because through their participation we have learned about head trauma and other injuries that can be results of contact sports. Aside from what sports teach us about injuries, sports have also taught us how to be better leaders. I played various sports in high school and would not be the same person today had I not had the experience of being on a team. You walk away with social skills, such as more effective ways of leading and communicating, that not a single textbook could teach. This is a huge part of how athletes are experiments of living because like mdcor said, and experiment of living is an action that “teaches and furthers society,” and without sports we wouldn’t have as many team players in the work force and in our world.
While I do agree that sports are most definitely an experiment of living, I disagree when you say there is no room for human improvement. I think that sports indeed encourage human improvement. I think that being a professional athlete creates better people because you are put in the spotlight and must create a reputation. As a role model, you work to be better on and off the field on a daily basis. I often times think that professional athletes are not given enough credit because regardless of whether their sports is in season, they still have a full time job. Along with that, it's hard to ignore the improvement of players over time. Watch any rookie and then look back on him or her in the coming years, they will likely have improved tremendously because advancing to the next level creates a new challenge. As a high school athlete myself I can attest to this. I also stopped playing because I would not have been able to play at the D1 level but looking at the way I played as a freshman and my adjusting to the faster pace of high school basketball in comparison to the way I saw varsity basketball as a senior just shows that it is a learning process. While I see what you mean, I strongly believe John Stuart Mill would see sports as an experiment of living.
ReplyDeleteI agree that being a professional athlete can be classified as an experiment in living. However, I do take issue with violent hits, and believe that the punishments for dangerous play in sports like football are not severe enough. I would argue that the majority of football players are playing the game for reasons other than a violent outlet. Then, according to utilitarianism, if a group of the "society," or in this case, the NFL players, are playing in a dangerous manner, this is preventing the rest of the non-violent players from adequately fulfilling their experiments of living. While Mill may advocate freedom, I believe that this argument would trump those few players' freedom to play violently.
ReplyDelete