The athletes are well paid, autonomous, consenting adults. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Football players are no different than miners with respiratory disease or fisherman drowning at sea. There are lots of dangerous jobs in this world. It's just the nature of the beast.

I came across an article that raises this question. What do you all think? Mostly harmless or our modern "hunger games"?

I think it would be really cool if they could some how incorporate Tasers into the game.

Well, part of the point was that it isn't just the athletes consenting to the sport: all of us who view it as entertainment also participate in the "industry" of pro sports. Also, the fisherman drowning is incidental to his trade--kind of like a rock climber falling splat, it's not what he's setting out to do--whereas hard hits really are a big part of what makes football football.

That sounds a bit like semantics to me. I'm sure it is of no consolation to a logger that his being crushed by a tree is incidental, rather than inherent, to his trade.

The athletes are well paid, autonomous, consenting adults. Morality has nothing to do with it.

This ^

I think a large part of the lawsuits involves allegations the NFL tried to hide evidence that concussions were a very real threat.

It's actually more than semantics. Intention is a large part of moral theory.

A death is a death, that's true, but the intention of the act that caused the death makes a great difference in law and in moral interpretation. A person who forms a plan to kill and actually does it, is, and (IMHO) should be, judged before the law to have committed a more morally reprehensible act than a person who loses control of his vehicle (for whatever reason) and mortally injures a pedestrian.

So .... the death of a person in an industrial accident is quite different, morally, from the death of a person engaged in an activity that has injury as a specific intent. Boxing, anyone?

While the bold is correct, I think you are off base on two points.

1. Football players and boxers give informed consent, victims of violent crimes do not.

2. In football, with the exception of a few "bounty programs", injuring other players is not the goal, or even an approved means of achieving the goal, which is winning. Boxing, MMA and all combat bases sports are indeed deep into some grey areas in that regard.

That said, I think #1 supersedes most all considerations, in most cases.

Morality is decided by the society who is living with it. Based on how many people they are who enjoy watching or participating in football, I would say that in American society, football is not immoral.

A lot of people liked watching Christians being fed to lions too.

Morality is decided by the society who is living with it. Based on how many people they are who enjoy watching or participating in football, I would say that in American society, football is not immoral.

I have big problems with this statement. Couldn't you equally say that in countries and societies where women are held to be second-hand citizens, that this kind of treatment is "moral" according to the standards within the society? Which makes morality mean nothing at all.

Yep, You might have a problem with this statement, but it is what it is. Your view of right and wrong (and, hence, of moral and immoral) is not shared by other cultures.

The society's view of what is right and wrong can change over time. Once upon a time, women were held to be second-class citizens in mainstream Western culture, too. And while we came to see that as wrong, the people of those times, including many women, didn't see anything wrong with it. It didn't change overnight, it is still changing and evolving, and yes, even in the Muslim world.

And I am sure I can come up with a list of things that you likely (based on some other of your posts in the past) consider wrong and immoral, but other people don't. Assisted suicide? Multiple concurrent sex partners? The majority of Western (US specifically) culture still considers those to be immoral. But there is a sizable minority that thinks otherwise. I would put those items in the "it is changing and evolving right now" category. Give it couple centuries, and ask people then...

And I am sure I can come up with a list of things that you likely (based on some other of your posts in the past) consider wrong and immoral, but other people don't.

This is what fascinates me. I could also come up with a list of things that I consider wrong and other people may not--but what I really want is a list of what we can all agree on is wrong on some objective level and isn't going to "evolve." Pedophilia? Murder? Is there a short list, or is it truly all relative?

This is what fascinates me. I could also come up with a list of things that I consider wrong and other people may not--but what I really want is a list of what we can all agree on is wrong on some objective level and isn't going to "evolve." Pedophilia? Murder? Is there a short list, or is it truly all relative?