Evan Thomas Knott

This paper explores the ethical dimensions of violence in sporting contexts, proposing that violence can be a virtue when characterized by controlled physicality. While society often views violence negatively, the paper argues that within rule-governed sports, certain forms of violence are morally permissible, strategically valuable, and essential to upholding the integrity of the game. Drawing on Suitsian terms and Kantian ethics, the paper develops a theory of lusory violence, distinguishing it from uncontrolled physicality or unmitigated violence. By examining the roles of enforcers in hockey, the development of MMA, and the ethics of sport jiu-jitsu, the paper suggests that violence is acceptable within a lusory framework only when it is purposive, strategically relevant, and constrained by rules that prioritize technical skill over raw damage. Ultimately, the paper argues that the ability to modulate violent behaviour represents a form of moral development, framing virtuous violence as a necessary tool for maintaining natural justice and personal excellence within specific sporting environments. Yet, virtuous violence is subordinate to technique, justice, and other defining elements of sports.

This paper argues that aggression, while often conflated with violence and harm, is a virtue in sports. We distinguish aggression from violence and assertiveness, exploring its positive moral value within rule-governed contexts. We examine the permissibility of violence in sports, considering consent and the public good while acknowledging the potential for harm and the importance of restraint. The paper uses anecdotal evidence and philosophical analysis to support the claim that controlled aggression, a form of self-restraint, is a valuable skill both in and outside of sport. Finally, we explore the relationship between aggression and other virtues like sportsmanship, highlighting the importance of context in evaluating aggressive behaviours.

The purpose of this research is to articulate how a theory of causation might be serviceable to a theory of sport. This article makes conceptual links between Bernard Suits’ theory of game-playing, causation, and theories of causation. It justifies theories of causation while drawing on connections between sport and counterfactuals. It articulates the value of theories of causation while emphasizing possible limitations. A singularist theory of causation is found to be more broadly serviceable with particular regard to its analysis of sports.