Violence and Sport

Esta entrevista se realizó al instructor Carlos Reymer con la finalidad de que comentara cómo ha sido su formación en las artes marciales, su preparación técnica como competidor y representante de la selección peruana de taekwondo y su desempeño como instructor en alumnos de distintas edades. Con esta conversación, se logra obtener un conocimiento panorámico y biográfico del recorrido en la práctica y la enseñanza de este deporte.

Diego Fernando Torrealva Sepúlveda nació el 19 de enero de 1992 en el distrito de La Victoria (Lima, Perú). Estudió Contabilidad en la Universidad San Martín de Porres y Educación Física en la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Empezó su práctica del taekwondo en Car Perú desde los 13 años, la cual continuó hasta alcanzar el segundo dan en su casa de estudios. Actualmente, practica taekwondo y ha sido campeón nacional en varias oportunidades. A sus entrenamientos, ha añadido el (...) aprendizaje de la gimnasia artística y ha dictado clases de fitness de combate (e-fight) en múltiples gimnasios. Asimismo, ha impartido sesiones de taekwondo en Vip Gym Peru, Car Perú, así como aprovecha en instruir a los jóvenes que integran la selección de taekwondo de la universidad San Marcos. Esta entrevista se hizo de forma audiovisual el 9 de julio de 2021. (shrink)

Sport provides an arena for human flourishing. For some, this pursuit of a meaningful life through sport involves the use of non-human animals, not least of all through sport hunting. This paper will take seriously that sport – including sport hunting – can provide a meaningful arena for human flourishing. Additionally, it will accept for present purposes that animals are of less moral value than humans. This paper will show that, even accepting these premises, much use of animals for sport (...) – including sport hunting – is unacceptable. Nonetheless it will show that there can be acceptable ways of using animals as part of a human’s meaningful life pursuits through sport, albeit in a more limited fashion than many sportspersons currently accept. (shrink)

Are acts of violence performed in virtual environments ever morally wrong, even when no other persons are affected? While some such acts surely reflect deficient moral character, I focus on the moral rightness or wrongness of acts. Typically it’s thought that, on Kant’s moral theory, an act of virtual violence is morally wrong (i.e., violate the Categorical Imperative) only if the act mistreats another person. But I argue that, on Kant’s moral theory, some acts of virtual violence can be morally (...) wrong, even when no other persons or their avatars are affected. First, I explain why many have thought that, in general on Kant’s moral theory, virtual acts affecting no other persons or their avatars can’t violate the Categorical Imperative. For there are real world acts that clearly do, but it seems that when we consider the same sorts of acts done alone in a virtual environment, they don’t violate the Categorical Imperative, because no others persons were involved. But then, how could any virtual acts like these, that affect no other persons or their avatars, violate the Categorical Imperative? I then argue that there indeed can be such cases of morally wrong virtual acts—some due to an actor’s having erroneous beliefs about morally relevant facts, and others due not to error, but to the actor’s intention leaving out morally relevant facts while immersed in a virtual environment. I conclude by considering some implications of my arguments for both our present technological context as well as the future. (shrink)