"Evilness"and "morality" of Martial Arts

[Ceicei]

I had debated with myself whether to post this in the Kenpo area or with General Martial Arts. I decided the subject is applicable to a broader range, so I'll post this to the General area.

As some of you already know, the kenpo studio closed down and I had to make transition to yet another studio. The instructors with the current studio carried over the material from the previous one and then over the course of the past year, started modifying some techniques.

Of course, an instructor can change his teaching materials however he wishes--that is his choice and his right. It is his school.

I started observing a pattern of modifications and this pattern is what is causing me to consider more about my self defense goals (at least as how they are for me).

His modifications are taking out the more lethal moves (or as some other martial artists here may say this way, a form of watering down or sanitizing). Finally, I decided to ask the two instructors why just to clarify for myself their intent with changing.

One said that the certain moves were removed becaise they're "evil". They do more harm than good. (Mind you, this is an adult's class, not children's class.) The other instructor said it is for liability reasons the changes were made. It is a "moral" change.

My response to my instructors was "there are evil people out there in the world."

<Rant On>

Evil? Moral? When did martial arts moves take upon an evil or moral aspect?

I do believe, ideally, that martial artists should have morals and have a sense of what is right and wrong. They, hopefully, will know of ways to avoid trouble and reduce confrontation. A martial artist will fight if the need arises and if there is no other way possible to avoid the situation.

In today's world, liability is a very real issue, especially with a "sue-happy" mentality. I can understand the concern there.

Yet I can't help but think, are not adults capable of deciding whether or not to use certain methods, techniques, or moves when a potential confrontation happens that may very well be a matter of life and death? Is it fair to change things by "withholding" knowledge simply because some moves are "evil" or "less moral"?

The reality is there ARE evil people out there with no regard for the life of others and would not care much about the morals of society. Thankfully, there aren't too many, but they do exist and we cannot always predict when or who may come into our lives.

On a related subject, not too long ago, a person commented that Judo may be safer--there are no strikes. I beg to differ. There are throws, holds, and takedowns with Judo that could be lethal (and thus fall under the definition of being "evil". ) [Evidently the person isn't aware that Judo does indeed have strikes in later stages of learning, but I digress.]

Personally, I don't think any physical move with any martial art is "evil" or "moral". I think this is all within the intent of the person making these moves.

<Rant Off>

Any thought or observation to share?

- Ceicei

 

[Big Don]

Thoughts? A few...
Boy, are you in the wrong place. To learn from someone you have to have a certain amount of faith in not only their abilities but THEM. If you are trying to learn from someone whose ideals differ so greatly from yours, something is going to suffer, you, most likely. Martial arts is a set of tools. Like you said, morals don't enter into it.

 

[Ceicei]

I'm thinking this out:

With most martial arts, I would say the degrees of physical force presented would be the first level of using control (causing no injury) up to the final level (if necessary) of causing death.

I had erroneously assumed that many martial artists would accept the risk of going to the final level, but I suppose there are some martial artists who are comfortable remaining as close as possible to the first level and not wanting to consider or deal with the possibility of the final level.

It makes me wonder how far would one be willing to go, if the need arises, under certain situations? I suppose no one will really know the answer until such a situation comes.

- Ceicei

 

[Carol]

The "final level" depends on a lot of different factors.

How much force would, say, a 130 pound woman need to halt a situation? The answer might depend on whether the situation was caused by the woman's 8 year old autistic child....or whether the situation was caused by a 300+ pound drugged out thug that's decided he's not taking no for an answer.

 

[tellner]

One of two things is going to happen here.

You'll grit your teeth, hold out and be uncomfortable and unhappy.

OR

You'll leave and find a school that's more in line with your values and ethics.

It's as simple as that.

There isn't any need to defend the presence of lethal techniques or your desire to have them among your options. You're a mature responsible adult with well integrated values. You've made The Decision which sets the tone for your life in martial arts and self defense. They have elected not to do so and have thereby limited their options and those of their students. If it were children I could understand their point of view. But you are not. Neither are your fellow students.

The following rant isn't necessarily for your benefit. You already understand. But it might say the things you know in a slightly different useful way.

Techniques have no volition. They have no mind. They are not moral actors. They can not be good or evil. They are simply physical movements with certain effects. It is those effects and the will which carries them out which carry a legal and ethical weight.

If you like to hurt people and use them for sadistic pleasure you are doing something evil. If you use them because you honestly believe that deadly force is necessary to protect innocent life you are acting in an entirely moral fashion.

In fact I'd go a step further. If memory serves you are a mother. If you aren't I'm sure you could imagine being one. If using a deadly technique would save the life of your spouse or keep someone from raping one of your children it would violate the most basic and universal ethos not to use it. Defense of the innocent against the evil doer is the basis of morality and civilization.

If your teachers do not understand this I maintain that they could take lessons in essential philosophy from a dog with puppies or things that live under rocks and bite whatever threatens their larvae. Self defense is very serious business. If students are not brought to the point where they confront the issues and make their own decisions the teachers have failed. If they are taking martial arts to learn to defend themselves against the threat of serious violent crime they must understand the range of options and levels of force of which they are capable. Any sifu who simply omits these is doing his students a grave disservice and has no business teaching self defense. If he says he is doing so in any comprehensive manner he is a fraud.

That's harsh. But it's the truth as plainly as I can tell it.

 

[tellner]

The "final level" depends on a lot of different factors.

How much force would, say, a 130 pound woman need to halt a situation? The answer might depend on whether the situation was caused by the woman's 8 year old autistic child....or whether the situation was caused by a 300+ pound drugged out thug that's decided he's not taking no for an answer.

We like to use the example of Bubba and Grandma.

Bubba is a 400 pound power lifter who use to be the front four for the Cincinnati Bengals. His testicles have shrunk to the size of BBs because of the steroids. He currently works as a longshoreman.

Grandma has taken 85 trips around that mean old sun and weighs one pound for each of them. She gets around pretty well all things considered.

Say Grandma's medications are off and she gets confused. She tries to hit Bubba with her walker. He might, might be justified in holding her at arm's length until she gets tired.

Suppose Bubba goes into steroid-induced psychosis and takes a step towards Grandma. If she shoots him so full of holes that birds and small raccoons can nest in his chest cavity the police will take a look at the situation and say "Nice groups, ma'am. Do you need a ride home? Are you alright?"

Not all cases are as extreme as that. But seriously, in an unarmed physical confrontation the average woman is at a possibly lethal disadvantage against the average man. She has to pick at least two out of four of G-d, luck, skill or a double helping of bloody-mindedness to prevail if she's willing to shed her normal civilized inhibitions. If she wants to restrict her techniques to those which can not kill or disable she'd better be damned good.

One of the reasons to continue training is so that you can be that good.

 

[Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu]

The "evilness" in martial arts is that most of the styles that exist were originally intended as a means of effective defense. In some cases (my thought is of traditional Okinawan Karate which was used to defend empty handed against Japanese Samurai armed with swords) a martial art was designed to be a killing art.

I can speak only of what I know. Our chief instructor in Okinawa told us that pre WWII Karate techniques were killing techniques. These were then watered down when the Americans began learning and they didn't want to teach the full extent of their art to their conquerors. These watered down techniques were then brought back to North America and taught. We have just now in the last couple years gone back to learning and teaching the art as it originally was (though we don't teach some of the "harsher" techniques to children.

The "morality" of martial arts is that most instructors now teach with the belief that under the sky we are all brothers and sisters and there is no reason for one to want to hurt the other. Unfortunately, there are the idiots out there who cant' be happy with themselves and therefore wish to take this out on someone else.

There are those of fight who are willing to fight so those who can't don't have to.

All just my opinion of course!
​

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

 

[Drac]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

Well said Andy...

 

[stone_dragone]

I'm surprised that no one has paraphrased the quote by Larrius Cable Gaius...

"...If [techniques] are to blame for killing someone, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words."

 

[morph4me]

Techniques are tools, and tools are neither inherently good or evil. That's like saying fire or water are evil because they can cause damage

While I have no problem with the watering down of techniques for people who are interested in physical fitness, I believe that teaching an ineffective technique that someone may have to depend upon to prevent bodily harm or death, or claiming that a particular technique is 100% effective 100% of the time, is immoral and evil.

In the end the decision to use a tool, and how and when, is up to the individual, who must also be ready and willing to accept the consequences for their actions.

Personally I would start looking for a different place to train.

 

[Cirdan]

Hmm.. I better go dull all my sharp evil kitchen knives.

 

[ppko]

Here is my problems with you instructors issue of taking out anything lethal first of all it takes away an option, if you need to take it that far. If it is not taught you no longer have the option open to you

 

[MantisStyle21]

I also believe they should not ristrict teaching to non-lethal techniques. The fact is that there are people out there who will put away their "non-lethal" methods to come after you and get what they want.

I don't know about anyone else but when the stuff hits the fan, and it comes down to me or them, I'm throwing all morals out the window, cause the man trying to kill me already has.

I personally would find a new school to learn to, the instructors are seriously taking away a vital part of martial arts. No one at that school may ever have to use a lethal technique, and if they stay there, I hope they never do. But if your luck is like mine and you stay there, one day you will be the only person out of that "non-lethal" school to be in a situation to use "lethal" force

My two cents. -Billy

 

[Bigshadow]

Stuff and nonsense.

Martial arts are neither good nor bad until first they are used by a good or bad person. Same way no firearm ever loaded, aimed, and fired itself.

And just who the hell are these people that they dictate what is "moral" and "evil" to others?

As politikally inkorrekt as it is, it remains the truth nonetheless: there are certain rare times when it is perfectly appropriate to kill someone.

If they are not mature enough to handle that fact and know who of their students can and can't handle learning that level yet then, frankly, they have no goddamned business teaching, irrespective of rank.

Well said Andy!

It isn't the weapon (the techniques in this case) that are evil or moral. It is the wielder of those weapons that is evil or not, or moral or not. Sometimes taking a life gives a life! One must be prepared to take their attacker's life if necessary!

 

[Kodiak61]

Long and short of it&#8230;if you need to defend your self, loved ones, or an individual we must have all the &#8220;tools&#8221; needed. Liability and litigation can be sorted out later. Police officers have an unofficial rule&#8230;better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6. I would find another place to train. God forbid, but a time may come when you or your family will survive on your skills. Remember we do NOT rise to our expectations, but sink to our level of training.

 

[Langenschwert]

What the hell are they thinking?

Our ancestors died to learn this kind of stuff. To negate and censor what they paid for with their own blood is the ultimate in disrespect to the Art. It is dangerous, foolish, and utterly reprehensible. I have nothing else to say.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[CoryKS]

I think this is a great idea because, as everybody knows, bad things will go away if you don't think about them.

 

[bydand]

I think this is a great idea because, as everybody knows, bad things will go away if you don't think about them.

Quite right! I'm going to start a whole new world peace movement by locking myself in the living room and playing Video games and thinking happy thoughts of others. That way I will miss the news and everything else that is happening out there. :lfao:

I have been thinking of the original post for a while now, and cannot come up with a viable argument to do this to an MA and still say it is a SD art. If you want to turn it into a glorified exercise program, then at least be honest about it and say so, same if you want to make it more "mass appealing" and up your student body (and therefore your bottom line.) I think the concepts of "Evilness/morality & truth/honor" go hand in hand. If you don't want to, or believe you shouldn't be, teaching an aspect of an art and you own the school, you should have enough honesty and integrity to gather your students and explain the changes you want to make and why you feel the changes are a good thing for the school. Also have on hand a list of other instructors in the area teaching the same art that you feel are good instructors and give the list to those students who don't agree with the new policies. To go about and change things gradually IMHO is just a polite way of saying the students are not bright enough to notice anything if done slowly.

I know of a school that did the same exact thing as soon as they got a new place to train and new equipment, they cut out a vast amount of the nitty-gritty in order to spoon feed a pablum art to the masses. I cannot in good conscious recommend it to anyone who is looking for a SD option, if they are just looking for a workout from a fitness aspect, it isn't a bad school and the owners are nice people.

 

[kidswarrior]

One said that the certain moves were removed becaise they're "evil". They do more harm than good. (Mind you, this is an adult's class, not children's class.) The other instructor said it is for liability reasons the changes were made. It is a "moral" change.

My response to my instructors was "there are evil people out there in the world."

<Rant On>

Evil? Moral? When did martial arts moves take upon an evil or moral aspect?

I do believe, ideally, that martial artists should have morals and have a sense of what is right and wrong. They, hopefully, will know of ways to avoid trouble and reduce confrontation. A martial artist will fight if the need arises and if there is no other way possible to avoid the situation.

....I can't help but think, are not adults capable of deciding whether or not to use certain methods, techniques, or moves when a potential confrontation happens that may very well be a matter of life and death? Is it fair to change things by "withholding" knowledge simply because some moves are "evil" or "less moral"?

- Ceicei

The part I bolded sums up my feelings, which are in line with yours, Ceicei. :asian: If instructors can't trust the adults they're teaching to make moral and just decisions about use of force, then why are they teaching them martial arts? I'd personally weed out any student I believed didn't have a strong sense of right and wrong (or wasn't at least learning this distinction as they progressed).

Beyond that, I'll just concur with the many good replies already posted. Martial skills are just tools. I believe Bishop Desmond Tutu just answered a question recently by saying that a knife can be good or bad. He used the extreme examples of whether it's used to slice bread or to cut off an arm. It's the wielder who makes the choice.