Suppose that two consenting adults fight to the death on TV ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter PseuTonym
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PseuTonym

Guest
… and half of the advertising revenue is guaranteed to be donated (anonymously, so that it cannot be refused) to the needy, via already well-established registered charitable organizations that have good reputations.

Of course, it is possible that in some cases the winner will later die of injuries sustained during the fight. However, in many cases the winner will continue to live for many years, so only one person will have died, and that person consented to the terms of engagement, in contrast with young men around the world who are conscripted into combat duty.

Would it be sinful to invest money to help establish (and potentially profit from) such televised fights, or would it be sinful to make an effort to prevent this new revenue source from beginning to flow to help the needy?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Can’t do evil to do good, sorry.
Click to expand...
What if each fight involves two persons who were both scheduled for execution by their government, and they are granted the option of participating in the fight as an alternative to execution, with the fight being scheduled for the day that would have been the day of execution?

What if one of them – based on weight, height, age, and general physique – appears to be a person who would be very vulnerable to violent crime, but has received one month of training in self-defense and martial arts?

The televising of the fights could be motivational and educational, persuading millions of people to pursue physical fitness activities that improve their health, and also enable them to defend themselves without attempting to rely upon weapons.
 
It is still a devaluation of human life. We simply cannot keep feeding into the culture of death that has blossomed into so much evil.
 
Suppose that two consenting adults fight to the death -]on/-]-] TV …/-] in the Roman Colloseum.

The accident of place does not change the morality of acts evil in their object.

Fight-to-the-death as entertainment in intrinsically evil always and everywhere.
 
I used the magic words “consenting adults.” I specified “two.” What did I do wrong?

Let those who have never committed the sinful (?) act of buying a book by Shakespeare, Pushkin, or Jane Austen say “no” to the TV-fight-to-the-death-for-advertising-money-for-charity proposal.

People who have bought such books wasted valuable money to buy a non-essential, and that money could have been donated to help the needy.

You have been to a Disney resort or watched a Disney movie in a theater, have you not? Confess! Don’t make me poke you with the soft cushions.
 
Catholic social teaching has always protected the dignity of human life. What could make you think a “fight to the death for entertainment” would ever be in accordance with this?
 
Binto said:
Catholic social teaching has always protected the dignity of human life. What could make you think a “fight to the death for entertainment” would ever be in accordance with this?
Click to expand...
Even if I knew that everybody would say “no”, I would still be interested in reading and studying the explanations and reasoning.

Also, some participants on this message board don’t accept Catholic social teaching. If the “two consenting adults” slogan is merely an oversimplification of a reliable principle, then perhaps somebody will provide a complete statement of that principle.
 
It is contrary to the dignity of human persons to watch them kill each other for entertainment. It reduces them to things rather than people.

Fiction is a different thing because there are not real people involved. Still, if one writes (or reads, or watches or makes) excessively violent material for the purpose of titillation, you’re getting into dicey moral territory.
 
How is this any different than donating the proceeds from pornography to charity? Of course it is unacceptable.
 
…What is the purpose of this question? Is this a social experiment to see what Catholics will say?

Sure, let’s do it! We can put it on a new cable channel! Call it the “Christine Chubbuck Channel!” Sign on every day with the video of her suicide, then sign off with Budd Dwyer’s! In between the big fights, we can add Islamic terror beheadings, internet murder videos, and the Faces of Death movies too! And live execution footage!

Yeah, I believe the answer to this question is “no.” The day that something like this comes on TV, creating a real-life Running Man or Smash TV, or Videodrome, is the day God should probably just blow this planet up and skip the whole Armageddon thing.

It’s already sad enough that sports like boxing, UFC, etc. exist. The people who do that, a lot of times, come from bad backgrounds, are abusive to their partners and have been abused, have drug problems, etc. Just like porn stars. It’s all one big self-loathing cry for help.
 
PseuTonym said:
What if each fight involves two persons who were both scheduled for execution by their government, and they are granted the option of participating in the fight as an alternative to execution, with the fight being scheduled for the day that would have been the day of execution?

What if one of them – based on weight, height, age, and general physique – appears to be a person who would be very vulnerable to violent crime, but has received one month of training in self-defense and martial arts?

The televising of the fights could be motivational and educational, persuading millions of people to pursue physical fitness activities that improve their health, and also enable them to defend themselves without attempting to rely upon weapons.
Click to expand...
Can’t do evil to do good. This event would devalue human life, using the death of one (maybe two) human beings as entertainment. It would degrade many of those who watch, reducing their own regard for the lives of others. It would predictably lead to a public demand for more such events, and then for greater violence. Tag-team death matches. Group combats. White against black. Unpopular ethnicities against members of the ethnic majority. Death matches to settle political conflicts.

TL: DR: Can’t do evil to do good and it would lead to much worse.
 
doomguy93 said:
…What is the purpose of this question? Is this a social experiment to see what Catholics will say?

Sure, let’s do it! We can put it on a new cable channel! Call it the “Christine Chubbuck Channel!” Sign on every day with the video of her suicide, then sign off with Budd Dwyer’s! In between the big fights, we can add Islamic terror beheadings, internet murder videos, and the Faces of Death movies too! And live execution footage!

Yeah, I believe the answer to this question is “no.” The day that something like this comes on TV, creating a real-life Running Man or Smash TV, or Videodrome, is the day God should probably just blow this planet up and skip the whole Armageddon thing.

It’s already sad enough that sports like boxing, UFC, etc. exist. The people who do that, a lot of times, come from bad backgrounds, are abusive to their partners, have drug problems, etc. Just like porn stars. It’s all one big self-loathing cry for help.
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts I’ve ever read.

Anyone who manages to get in a reference to Budd Dwyer, Christine Chubbuck, Smash TV, Faces of Death, and the Running Man (“who loves you, and who do you love?”) in the same post is a great poster. Welcome.
 
PseuTonym said:
I used the magic words “consenting adults.” I specified “two.” What did I do wrong?

Adult consent is not a magic thing that transforms evil into good.

Let those who have never committed the sinful (?) act of buying a book by Shakespeare, Pushkin, or Jane Austen say “no” to the TV-fight-to-the-death-for-advertising-money-for-charity proposal.

People who have bought such books wasted valuable money to buy a non-essential, and that money could have been donated to help the needy.

It is not a sin to buy and use a non-essential. Further buying and reading a book, even a novel in which the characters do violent things, is not remotely equivalent to letting two people murder each other in real life for the entertainment of spectators.

You have been to a Disney resort or watched a Disney movie in a theater, have you not? Confess! Don’t make me poke you with the soft cushions.
Click to expand...
**Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! ** 😛
 
This is a social information gathering experience. It seems that once some consider the masses more and more desensitized, the goal is to go deeper into the pit.

The answer is there are no “magic words.” I recall one sicko in a movie pay a person to beat him up so he could discredit someone. That was fiction. Now let’s go back to Roman Colosseum times?

No. Never. Under any circumstances. The idea, not the poster, is sick.

Ed
 
PseuTonym said:
… and half of the advertising revenue is guaranteed to be donated (anonymously, so that it cannot be refused) to the needy, via already well-established registered charitable organizations that have good reputations.

Of course, it is possible that in some cases the winner will later die of injuries sustained during the fight. However, in many cases the winner will continue to live for many years, so only one person will have died, and that person consented to the terms of engagement, in contrast with young men around the world who are conscripted into combat duty.

Would it be sinful to invest money to help establish (and potentially profit from) such televised fights, or would it be sinful to make an effort to prevent this new revenue source from beginning to flow to help the needy?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if the revenue from it could end world hunger. It is wrong and therefore nothing can excuse it.
 
PseuTonym said:
What if each fight involves two persons who were both scheduled for execution by their government, and they are granted the option of participating in the fight as an alternative to execution, with the fight being scheduled for the day that would have been the day of execution?

What if one of them – based on weight, height, age, and general physique – appears to be a person who would be very vulnerable to violent crime, but has received one month of training in self-defense and martial arts?

The televising of the fights could be motivational and educational, persuading millions of people to pursue physical fitness activities that improve their health, and also enable them to defend themselves without attempting to rely upon weapons.
Click to expand...
These things do literally nothing to change that it is 100% wrong.
 
PseuTonym said:
I used the magic words “consenting adults.” I specified “two.” What did I do wrong?

Let those who have never committed the sinful (?) act of buying a book by Shakespeare, Pushkin, or Jane Austen say “no” to the TV-fight-to-the-death-for-advertising-money-for-charity proposal.

People who have bought such books wasted valuable money to buy a non-essential, and that money could have been donated to help the needy.

You have been to a Disney resort or watched a Disney movie in a theater, have you not? Confess! Don’t make me poke you with the soft cushions.
Click to expand...
Consenting adults has NEVER been a valid excuse to commit a sin for anyone that follows the Catholic faith. Why would you think this nonsense scenario would be different? Also, what are you talking about regarding the books? Buying books is not intrinsically evil. And education is a good thing, so arguably buying them is good. Our religion never taught that we had to give everything bar what was needed for bare survival to the poor.
 
o_mlly said:
Suppose that two consenting adults fight to the death -]on/-]-] TV …/-] in the Roman Colloseum.

The accident of place does not change the morality of acts evil in their object.

Fight-to-the-death as entertainment in intrinsically evil always and everywhere.
Click to expand...
Its interesting how popular those colloseum fights used to be, I wonder if there were ever any people that protested these events.

Its also interesting how popular the same style of fighting is today, I know many people who still love wrestling and cage style fighting, the more violent, the larger crowds they draw and Id imagine a ‘fight to the death’ type event would still draw HUGE crowds today.

I guess people just like violence and death, My grandparents used to talk about the reason why Nascar racing was so popular, people were not going to watch cars continually driving in a circle for 200+ laps…they were going hoping to see an accident/exceitement, some kind of life and death event.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
Also, what are you talking about regarding the books?
Click to expand...
Please see the following thread:

Sinful to buy yourself treats instead of helping the needy?

If you enjoy reading books of novels, plays, and poetry, then they are a treat. If books by Shakespeare, Pushkin, and Jane Austen are essential, then they should be provided by paramedics, soup kitchens, etc.

The bolded words at the bottom of this message are supposed to sound ridiculous, and I hope that it is clear that they are ridiculous precisely because you are right. It isn’t sinful to buy novels, plays, or poetry.

**Let he who is without the sin of buying novels, plays, and poetry cast the first stone of opposition to the proposal of fight-to-the-death-on-TV-for-advertising-revenue-for-the-needy.
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top