UFC: Ethical? Part Two

The last post I made introduced the concept of why violent activities, in this case the  TV show UFC, become so popular throughout history, and in the United States. For those of you who have not read it, the main point I tried to make was that in a state that has a history of violence, that violence will be portrayed in recreational and media events. That being established, I wanted to dig deeper into this idea of commercialized, publicized fighting, and whether one can consider it ethical or not.

One of the first thoughts I had was to compare it to dog fighting, an extremely controversial activity, one that, for reasons I won't bother discussing now, I had already decided was unethical. Because of this, I began to draw conclusions that UFC would have to be immoral if dog fighting is, as they are both activities in which people watch things fight. Makes sense, right? However, as I  was looking at the similarities between the two, I couldn't help but regard the differences that I had not seen originally.
For one, UFC is more regulated. I'm no expert, but I do understand that the objective is not to kill your opponent, and there are many regulations to make sure that doesn't happen; the skill at which the combatants fight in UFC also work as a check, as both fighters will know what could possibly be lethal. Secondly, and mores strikingly, the fact that UFC is voluntary, and dog fighting is not (for the dogs, that is), had more of an impact on my judgement than anything else. A sense that volunteering justifies some actions is not isolated to this example.This idea can be seen in the military, as any outcry against military action is usually directed against drafting, while volunteers are typically considered heroes, serving their country.
The ethicality in volunteering for dangerous things, like the UFC, can easily be compared to another major part of American society:  football.
 With injury rates so high in proffesional football among other sports, it is almmost a garuantee that someone playing professionally will get hurt in his career. However, there is no opposition to football, and most regard the sport as completely moral. With this in mind, my comparison to dog fighting began to crumble. I realized that all of my remaining reasoned points indicated that despite some people's aggression towards the open violence that is Mixed Martial Arts, perhaps the history of violence that the United States possesses, if nothing else, justifies the common ethical views of the practice.

UFC: Ethical?

I'm not a fan of professional wrestling or fighting, but recently I was in a conversation with some friends where the subject was brought up. I have nothing against people who genuinely enjoy watching shows such as these, but I do wonder about the ethicalness of shows like UFC, and why they become popular.

I'll start with popularity, as it is the easiest of the two to explain. Watching people fight is something that has appeared in nearly every stage of human development. Perhaps the roman gladiators is the most frequently acknowledged example of this, and as such, I shall start there.

Roman Gladiators were more than just slaves forced to fight, they were athletes; they trained, conditioned, and sometimes offered themselves willingly for the life of a gladiator. The ones who were successful were often rewarded very well, and those who were not, well, let's just say they went out of commission for some time. But why was watching the fights so popular? The simple answer is that people were bored, and would do anything for entertainment, but I think it goes farther. I believe that because war was so common at the time, fighting, and learning about fighting, was embedded into the life all the populace, whether they had fighting experience themselves or not. This would mean that in a society in which war is a frequency, recreational fighting will occur as well. So why is UFC so popular in the US, we are a peace loving democratic society? Right? Not quite. When you think about it, the country was created and formed upon a war, and there have been very few times in which the United States have not been in some sort of conflict. With the warring history of the United States in mind, it makes sense that that same passion or enthusiasm for fighting would appear in the  country's populace.

Chemical Castration?

I recently heard that Russia's parliament has a new bill in proposal, one that allows for chemical castration. reaching for more information, I found this article, that will provide a little bit more clarity to the bill's purpose and extent. http://rt.com/news/pedophilia-russia-chemical-castration-059/. Criminal Punishment is a subject that has many subcategories, none of which I will ever be capable of completely addressing; but what I am willing to do is share some thoughts on this particular bill.

The logic behind the bill is simple, if a sexual offender is known, then removing the, shall we say, chemical natures of desire, then the recidivism rates must drop significantly. The only problem is deciding if the ends justify the means. It would appear that Russia is in favor of the bill, but how would it hold up in America?

My belief is that senate and congress would not be able to pass such a law. I don't know about Russia, but the United States has an amendment  that deals directly with this sort of problem, and it has a very clear answer. No. Furthermore, media would be all over this with coverage, and organizations would come out in protest in such mass, using the constitution as their foundation, that congress and senate would in know way be able to cleanly pass such a bill.

What do you think about this bill? Would it pass? Should it pass?