Pugilism v pacifism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
commonsense
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Pugilism v pacifism

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:05 pm

Can a pugilist be a pacifist?

Muhammad Ali, nee Cassius Clay, certainly thought so. Ali was a champion prize fighter when he declared himself a conscientious objector.

How could Ali participate in an aggressive sport and be unwilling to be inducted into the military? Isn’t inflicting harm on an opponent what fighting is all about?

Does it matter what the weaponry is? Does it matter whether the intent is to win or to kill?

As a C.O. and Ali fan, I find this impossible to reconcile.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:41 pm

Because by and large they don't kill each other in the ring nor are they drafted to do it. But Ali didn't go because he was a CO but because he didn't see why a black man who was treated as a second class citizen in America should have to go and kill brown men who had done him no harm.

commonsense
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:54 pm

So true.

commonsense
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:46 pm

So boxers aren’t drafted and they don’t intend to kill, but could there be a boxer/conscientious objector?

Boxing is a sport; a boxer’s aggressiveness is part of his training and preparation for a fight. Being as this is a sport, anyone but the most extreme pacifist should be able to take part.

I can only see a pacifist training and preparing for combat if he will subjugate his principles in order to avoid going to jail.

Many were disappointed and angered by Ali’s refusal to serve, even though he based his action on the reasons you cited. Additionally, Ali had recently converted to Islam, and the teachings of his religion forbade him from killing a human being.

Even so, Ali did not express an aversion to all wars, but rather only to the Vietnam war because of how blacks were treated in America and because America’s enemy was persons of color.

Ali’s refusal was more for the socio-political reasons that you stated then for reasons of faith. As such, I don’t believe he was a pacifist in the truest sense.

So, in theory, could a pacifist be a boxer? I think the answer here is yes.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:19 pm

commonsense wrote:...

Many were disappointed and angered by Ali’s refusal to serve, even though he based his action on the reasons you cited. Additionally, Ali had recently converted to Islam, and the teachings of his religion forbade him from killing a human being. ...
Islam doesn't forbid killing others just only in certain circumstances.

puto
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by puto » Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:40 am

Hello, Arising UK has been long time since we last chatted. I have well studied philosophy, and religion now for a long time, and this Philosophy Now magazine a is perfect example of philosophy, and religion in practice. You should be talking about "theism," and it's many forms. This is a philosophy of religion topic, and has family resemblance. Muhammad was militaristic. Islam is peace. Jesus was a pacifist, and Muhammad said,"Jesus was a prophet." Arising UK remember his time, as I know you are a philosopher, in Mecca, and Medina. Peace, and Sword. What does peace mean to Muhammad? He was a great leader of Islam, and the worlds religions of "theism." Was Muhammad the proclaimed prophet by Jesus?

gaffo
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:49 am

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:46 pm
So boxers aren’t drafted and they don’t intend to kill, but could there be a boxer/conscientious objector?

Boxing is a sport; a boxer’s aggressiveness is part of his training and preparation for a fight. Being as this is a sport, anyone but the most extreme pacifist should be able to take part.

I can only see a pacifist training and preparing for combat if he will subjugate his principles in order to avoid going to jail.

Many were disappointed and angered by Ali’s refusal to serve, even though he based his action on the reasons you cited. Additionally, Ali had recently converted to Islam, and the teachings of his religion forbade him from killing a human being.
citation per Islam against killing other folks please.

I've read 1/3 of the Koran decades ago (80's) - and 3/4 of the Old Testament, and 1/3 of the New Testament.

i do not see them different per "killing others" - if you see somehow M. A. converting to Islam all of the sudden dissallowed to to kill, when prior as a Christian (I assume he was) - it was a-ok, cite please.

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:46 pm
Even so, Ali did not express an aversion to all wars, but rather only to the Vietnam war because of how blacks were treated in America and because America’s enemy was persons of color.
there are smart wars - ww2, and dumb ones, Iraqnam and Veitnam - one is born with a mind to decide which war is smart and which is dumb, it one has shit for brains and volunteers for a dumb war............ well you can't fix stupid.


your point?

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:46 pm
Ali’s refusal was more for the socio-political reasons that you stated then for reasons of faith. As such, I don’t believe he was a pacifist in the truest sense.

oh, ok - did not read this far per my iquary of your point.

yes concur you are on point per your point.

imo.



commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:46 pm
So, in theory, could a pacifist be a boxer? I think the answer here is yes.

probably.

gaffo
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:56 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:19 pm
commonsense wrote:...

Many were disappointed and angered by Ali’s refusal to serve, even though he based his action on the reasons you cited. Additionally, Ali had recently converted to Islam, and the teachings of his religion forbade him from killing a human being. ...
Islam doesn't forbid killing others just only in certain circumstances.
welcome understanding the particulars where not allowed - if you know. its been 35 yrs since i read some of that work.

per general theology it is identical to the Torah/OT. no difference at all in fact.

Christianity is the "odd one out" per "western religion" theology............earlier Mormans - lol (Jewish Mormans).

of course the Muslims have their mormons (if you ignore the Shia/Sunni split (which is basically Catholic/Prot in christian circles - where the doctrine is some, just small differences)- Allowites (Ali is devine!) - Ahmadiyya (some Paki Muslim 16th cent prophet is devine!)

gaffo
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by gaffo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:11 am

puto wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:40 am
Was Muhammad the proclaimed prophet by Jesus?
more likely Ghandi and/or Malcom X was/were..........both killed by more devout (fanatical - just missing the whole boat mindsetwise of thier mentor) fundis (Hindu nationalist/black nationalist/etc..........)

you can place whomever you wish in any century.

Rabin via Yegal Amir works well too. Jewish moderate wise man killed by fanatical moronic jewiosh nationalistic thug fanatic.

Gary Childress
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Pugilism v pacifism

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:30 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 7:41 pm
Because by and large they don't kill each other in the ring nor are they drafted to do it. But Ali didn't go because he was a CO but because he didn't see why a black man who was treated as a second class citizen in America should have to go and kill brown men who had done him no harm.
But isn't "not wanting to kill brown men who had done him no harm" essentially a conscientious objection?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests