Why the Klitschkos should fight each other or quit boxing -- an ethical perspective

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

This is an old and wise ethical principle which can be found in all the major religions.

The Klitschko brothers are quite happy to make a living from boxing. However they refuse to match up against each other.

"Do unto others as you would do unto your brother"

The Klitschko brothers are willing to box other people but this is an activity which they are unwilling to do to amongst themselves. This is immoral.

Boxing can only exist in a civilised society if we accept that it is a game within which the normal ethical rules are suspended.

When we play games we play by different ethical rules. Let's say I am playing Monopoly with my friends and I am winning. One of my friends who is losing badly and has little money lands on Mayfair, which I own.

In real life if one of my friends came to visit me at my Mayfair hotel and I knew he was down to his last few hundred pounds, I would let him stay for free. In Monopoly I make him pay. We have submitted to the rules of the game and accept that when we play the game. Monopoly would be very dull indeed if everyone played it in a spirit of friendship and compassion.

Clearly if Vitali Klitschko, wearing his boxing gloves, was to go up to a man on the street and punch him in the face -- that would be a serious crime. In boxing the normal rules have been suspended.

The fact that that the Klitschkos won't fight each other shows that on some level they do not think of what they do in the boxing ring as a game -- they think of it as beating up another human being.

If the Klitschkos think boxing is about beating people up -- they should not do it because beating people up is wrong. Boxing can only be justified if we see it as a game. My friend may not enjoy getting beaten at Monopoly any more than a losing boxer enjoys himself -- but we accept the good and the bad of the game or we choose not to play it at all.

If the Klitschkos see boxing as a morally acceptable game they should -- as the number one and number two ranked heavyweights -- fight each other.

If the Klitschkos see boxing as being the act of beating someone up for money -- they should retire from boxing.

 

You seem to think there is a conflict between family and boxing. What do you think it is?

Would you play Monopoly against your brother? Would you play football against your brother? Would you play boxing against your brother?

Boxing is either a game or it is wrong.

Now, you don't have to like all the games out there or play them all. If you don't like Monopoly -- don't play it.

If you don't like boxing -- don't do it.

The Klitschkos do box.

 

Good post KingCobra. I should clarify that I don't think the Klitschkos are bad guys. As you say nearly everyone treats their brother differently to the stranger on the street -- but that doesn't make it right.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule[/ame]

 

Good post digregorio1. I totally understand where you are coming from but the point is that if you believe that the purpose of boxing is to physically harm someone -- surely you would have to conclude that boxing should not be allowed at all?

Many games are dangerous such as horse racing, rugby and motor racing. In rugby and grid-iron it is not uncommon for players to be left seriously hurt, even to die, from the actions of their opponents. In rugby and grid-iron we accept that it is not the intention of players to hurt one another. The intention is to win the game. Boxing must be approached in the same fashion.

A quote from Joe Calzaghe:

"I have never set foot in a ring with the express intention of inflicting serious harm on my opponent."

Boxing can only be condoned if it treated like a game, in the same way we consider Monopoly. Boxing is a violent and dangerous game -- but a game nonetheless. Violence is inevitable in boxing -- just as it is inevitable in rugby -- but violence is not the purpose of boxing.

If boxing is not primarily a game -- but it is instead merely an excuse for legalised violence and brutality -- it cannot be condoned.

Within the game of boxing both boxers submit to the rules of the game -- they accept the inherent physical dangers. However, if you accept that boxing is a game, you should have no reservations about playing it -- you should be willing to play the game against anyone -- including your brother.

The fact that the Klitschkos will not fight each other suggests that they have reservations about boxing. If so they should not do it at all.

As I said before, I don't think the Klitschkos are bad guys. They actually seem very nice guys compared to most boxers and I admire their charitable work. All the same, I do believe that they should be willing to fight each other -- or be unwilling to fight anyone.