Shallow Thought Cannot Defend UFC or MMA

We really hate to belabor a point. We really, truly do. We try to vary what we write about on these pages because we sincerely don't want to bore our readers or bore ourselves. Further, there's no point pigeonholing ourselves, as we would then be seen only as unable to let things go, or worse, as single subject ramblers. Our blinders are not on; we try very hard to keep them off. Yet today we feel we simply must revisit an issue which we have only just addressed.

Just the other day, July 19th, in fact, we spoke against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as morally wrong on the very simple grounds that it is wrong to inflict pain on someone, anyone, even a willing victim, solely to inflict pain on them. The intent of each is to cause your opponent terrible enough injuries that they cannot continue the fight. Such cannot be moral nor a sport, as supporters of UFC and MMA assert.

One reader took umbrage at the point. His response was rather too simple, and indeed ignored the point we were trying to make. He said in comment: You don't have to fight, you don't have to watch, and you don't have to spend any money that might makes its way into the pockets of those of us who do so ... problem solved.

Problem so not solved. Problem not solved at all, by any rational measuring stick. The inherent weakness of that argument, again after the fact that it ignores our main point entirely, is so obvious that we amazed that anyone could possibly take it seriously.

Let's substitute something else for MMA and UFC here: murder. Do you have to participate in, watch, or pay money for a murder to realize murder is wrong? Do you have to become an active thief or kidnapper to even begin to believe those acts are wrong? Of course not. Likewise, you do not have to go anywhere near a UFC or MMA event to determine whether they are right or wrong either.

It's pretty clear that the person who wrote that weak and wobbly defense of UFC and MMA participates in them. But that means little as well: if it's wrong to do it, he's wrong, and if it's okay, he's okay. We only ask one final question on the matter, at least for the moment.

Who of us has integrity of position on the matter?