Watching Football (American Style)?

Taq writes: We could use cars as an example. If you allow a known flaw to be incorporated into a car's design that you know could unnecessarily put peoples' lives at risk and you don't fix the problem because it would reduce profits, is that immoral? Most people would say yes. Would it be moral if it only killed 0.1% of car owners which would still be hundreds or even thousands of people? Where do you draw the line?

What do you mean by "known flaw?"

If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral.

If you mean known-to-the-designers, but all drivers (existing and potential) were made very much aware of it as well... and then decided if they wanted to drive that car or not while incorporating that risk into their decision... then I do not see it as immoral.

Guess which one I think is closer to the situation in the NFL?

Would it be moral if it only killed 0.1% of car owners which would still be hundreds or even thousands of people? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral.

For example, I am a proponent of being able to legally choose one's own death if one so desires.
Laws across Canada (and other nations?) are being adapted to account for allowing such a thing.

Such laws will allow 100% death to those who choose to follow through under them.
Is it immoral because 100% of people will die if they choose to die?

I don't think so.

I think the only moral/immoral point is on consent.

Does the consent exist?
Is it informed consent?
Is the NFL purposefully clouding the issue?
Is the NFL actively pursuing the ability to have informed consent?

Those are the questions I find to affect the moral issue.

It's interesting that you can proclaim that an IRB is probably wrong and they can't be judges of what is moral, yet here you are proclaiming yourself the ultimate moral judge of alcohol in society.

What's an IRB? The review-board people you were talking about? I'm going to assume this...

As well "I think..." is hardly proclaiming myself to be the ultimate anything. It's simply my opinion.

And if you read all I posted.. I actually agree that the IRB has a role to play, and an important one, and that they should play it.
I just point out that they, too, should remember that it is only their (hopefully informed and experienced) opinion and they should search for and account for more information in an ongoing fashion.

I think it is immoral to have the state profit off of a substance that causes serious harm to its citizens.

I agree.

1 - But who gets to decide what is "harm" and what is not? It is my opinion that this should be decided by each and everyone of us individually as mature adults.

2 - I don't think that selling alcohol causes serious harm to it's citizens (as determined by those citizens).
I think that some people abuse alcohol and cause serious harm to themselves and others.

I don't think playing football causes serious harm to NFL players (as determined by those NFL players).
I think that some NFL players abuse football and cause serious harm to themselves and others.

As well, I think some citizens accept the risk of damage-causing-alcohol consumption in order to get pleasure from it. When, really, any amount of alcohol-consumption causes some small level of damage, while large amounts of consumption can cause death. (Individuals vary).

As well, I think some NFL players accept the risk of damage-causing-football playing in order to get pleasure/money from it. When, really, any amount of football playing causes some small level of damage, while large amounts of playing can cause death. (Individuals vary).

However, I also think alcohol should be legal because the harms caused by prohibition are worse than those caused by its legal sale.

I think alcohol should be legal because I'm a big boy and can make such decisions for myself.
I don't need or want the government making such decisions for me.
I'm defending that same idea for the NFL players... I think (in this situation, at least) that personal responsibility should be valued higher than big brother safety nets.

I also participate in funding the state by buying alcohol, so I'm no angel.

I'm certain I have some level of hypocrisy myself. That doesn't stop us from having interesting conversations/thought-experiments though, does it?

I have a slightly different view. The question for me is the line between immoral and illegal. How immoral does something need to be before we step in and change behavior through legislation? That line is really hard to draw.

Okay. I think I see this. And I do agree.

Although I would not consider it strictly immoral if, say, 100% of football players died, as long as they participated under fully transparent and known consensual conditions.

However, given the reality of the situation... I would (at some point) agree that legislation should be put in. Because, at some point, even though I think people should be allowed to die if they really, actually want to... I don't think some "significant number of human lives" should be lost under the umbrella of a situation where we don't know if everything involves 100% informed-consent (because information about concussions and other injuries is not great), or even if judgment is being impaired (because of the high amount of money).

And if the main question is "where is this line?" I agree. Where is this line?

My only advice is to move in the directions we do understand... doing studies and investigations to get as close to 100% informed consent as possible and understanding whether or not judgment is impaired by the high amounts of money are good avenues towards the right path.

So... how do we do those?
Are we doing things moving in that direction? (I really don't know enough about the football issue to say either way).

Is there any other path-towards-the-line that can help give more information in figuring out where it is?

Stile writes: If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral.

Even if it only affected a small minority?

I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral.

Are you sure about that?

If a design flaw leads to one death per million cars, I think most people would consider that to be a non-issue. If a design flaw leads to 1 death for every 10 cars, that would be an issue.

I agree. 1 - But who gets to decide what is "harm" and what is not? It is my opinion that this should be decided by each and everyone of us individually as mature adults. 2 - I don't think that selling alcohol causes serious harm to it's citizens (as determined by those citizens). I think that some people abuse alcohol and cause serious harm to themselves and others. I don't think playing football causes serious harm to NFL players (as determined by those NFL players). I think that some NFL players abuse football and cause serious harm to themselves and others.

It is the facts which determine if physical harm is being done, not the opinions of humans. If studies determine that alcohol abuse results in disease, then it is harmful. If studies demonstrate that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury, then those are the facts. You can't wish them away.

If NFL players were not being paid large salaries, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in this way? Probably not.

I think alcohol should be legal because I'm a big boy and can make such decisions for myself. I don't need or want the government making such decisions for me.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, and personal freedom is the flip side of this whole discussion. However, we have to remember that we are a society and not a sea of individual islands that don't affect one another.

So... how do we do those? Are we doing things moving in that direction? (I really don't know enough about the football issue to say either way). Is there any other path-towards-the-line that can help give more information in figuring out where it is?

I think it is universally understood among football players that they have a >80% chance of suffering from CTE. If memory serves, >90% of the brains they looked at from football players had CTE.

I'm really not sure where we can draw the line. The best we an do is discuss it as a society and see if we can't come to some sort of consensus. What we shouldn't do is ignore the possible moral implications of how the system is structured and how it can cause individuals to sacrifice their long term health when they may not have in different circumstances. When you get right down to it, football is there for our entertainment. It's not as if they are saving people from burning buildings.

Hi Taq, this is a reply to you Message 32:

Taq writes: Stile writes: If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral. Even if it only affected a small minority?

Yes. It would definitely be immoral to that small minority.

Taq writes: Stile writes: I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral. Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure.

If you don't think so, you could respond to the example I gave about people choosing to die - legally and morally.

If a design flaw leads to one death per million cars, I think most people would consider that to be a non-issue. If a design flaw leads to 1 death for every 10 cars, that would be an issue.

"An issue" is different from "being immoral."

1 death per million cars, because of a known-design flaw that the manufacturer kept secret from the end-user is definitely immoral to whoever dies from it.

I agree that it may be a "non-issue" and taken as "the cost of selling/driving cars" but it's still undeniably immoral to the person who died.

It is the facts which determine if physical harm is being done, not the opinions of humans.

That's true, but irrelevant.
Physical harm is just fine as long as the one being harmed is okay with it.

Again, see my example of BDSM sex.

If we're talking about "what's right" then we need to talk about morality.
And where morality is concerned... physical harm is only an issue if there is no consent attached to receiving that physical harm.

If you want to step in and say "Whoa! That's too much physical harm for me!! You people should stop that so I don't feel strange!"
Then you are the one causing a problem... not the one's who have given their informed-consent to engage in the BDSM (or any other physically-harming activity) that you simply don't approve of.

If studies determine that alcohol abuse results in disease, then it is harmful. If studies demonstrate that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury, then those are the facts. You can't wish them away.

I fully agree.

And the studies (I believe) certainly do show that alcohol abuse results in harm (possibly not specifically disease-related-harm).
And the studies (I believe) certainly do show that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury.

I accept such things as facts.

I simply acknowledge the informed-consent of another mature adult to accept these risks for their own reasons if they so desire.

Again... BDSM specifically causes harm. That's the only thing it does... is causes physical harm.
However... two mature adults involved in a BDSM relationship is just fine if they both give their informed-consent.

Same thing with alcohol.
Same thing with football.

If NFL players were not being paid large salaries, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in this way? Probably not.

And if BDSM wasn't fun for someone, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in that way? Also probably not. And also equally irrelevant.

Even if an NFL player required a massive salary in order to subject themselves to such risk... who's to say that the judgment is impaired?

Is it impossible to have a non-impaired judgment saying you'll risk a lot to gain a lot? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's rather obvious that many of these judgments are not impaired. They're quite reasonable... risking a lot to gain a lot. That's not some strange concept. And mature adults should be able to make such decisions for themselves.

Now, I do agree that it's quite possible that the money does impair someone's judgment.
And that precautions should be put in place to work against such a thing.

But the precaution of "no one should do it" is over-board to me.
It's saying "well, I wouldn't do it... so NO ONE CAN!!!" And, well, that only sounds immature and ridiculous to me.

What precautions would help?
Where should the line be drawn?

Good questions.
But just because they are good questions doesn't imply that the answer is "no one should be doing this." That's silly.

I think it is universally understood among football players that they have a >80% chance of suffering from CTE. If memory serves, >90% of the brains they looked at from football players had CTE.

I would be defending the exact same thing if the number was an absolute, known 100% for every NFL player to step on the field.

As long as it is informed consent, what's the problem other than you think it's not something others should do?
I think others should be able to make up their own minds for such a question.
I think you're over-reaching your abilities by insinuating that it's not possible for someone to want to take such a risk for any reason.

I'm really not sure where we can draw the line. The best we an do is discuss it as a society and see if we can't come to some sort of consensus. What we shouldn't do is ignore the possible moral implications of how the system is structured and how it can cause individuals to sacrifice their long term health when they may not have in different circumstances. When you get right down to it, football is there for our entertainment. It's not as if they are saving people from burning buildings.

With this statement... I fully agree.
I will also point out that not a single word/sentence/idea makes any impact on my position. In fact, it all directly supports my position.

Stile writes: That's true, but irrelevant. Physical harm is just fine as long as the one being harmed is okay with it. Again, see my example of BDSM sex.

That would only apply if that also included millions of dollars in salary to the ones being harmed. How many would expose themselves to physical harm just for the money? Why do we consider this type of behavior exploitative to the people being paid for such acts?

But just because they are good questions doesn't imply that the answer is "no one should be doing this." That's silly.

I don't think it is silly to ask if things should be banned if they are causing people harm. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I also think it is worthwhile to at least play Angel's advocate. If we try our best to thrash an argument and see if it stands then we can at least be confident in our positions at the end.

As long as it is informed consent, what's the problem other than you think it's not something others should do?

It's the informed consent part that is worrisome. It wouldn't be informed consent if money is being used to coerce participation. Even then, our society and views on personal freedoms have taken the position that some coercion is ok, so I'm not sure where to draw the line. Perhaps the best people to ask are ex-football players who are suffering from brain injuries and get their views.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi Taq, a response to your Message 34. My issues with the Reply To button in this thread irk me greatly.

Taq writes: That would only apply if that also included millions of dollars in salary to the ones being harmed.

I'm not so sure that matters.

How many would expose themselves to physical harm just for the money? Why do we consider this type of behavior exploitative to the people being paid for such acts?

I think this is exactly what I'm questioning.
I don't see it as exploitative. Just for existing, anyway.
I do admit it opens the door for exploitation... but I don't see exploitation existing just because money is involved.

I'm going to try to take it in small steps to see if we can nail something down.
You say where you disagree and why:

Let's assume it's okay to make a consensual decision to be harmed "for fun." Like BDSM sex.
Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed in football "for fun?" - no money involved, even up to the level of the NFL.

Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed and also get paid for it? Like a BDSM dungeon thing or something.

Wait... this scenario is rather open.
Let me add some restrictions:

Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed and also get paid for it as long as there are strict limits that are enforced ensuring that the "harm" does not go beyond that which consent is given for by all parties involved? (like a modern, well-run BDSM dungeon thingy).
Is it okay for this situation to move over into football?

I am arguing that, yes, this is okay in BDSM and it's also okay in football.

The issue, for me, is understanding/ensuring/enforcing that the harm does not go beyond the consent. "Informed consent."

I don't think it is silly to ask if things should be banned if they are causing people harm. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I also think it is worthwhile to at least play Angel's advocate. If we try our best to thrash an argument and see if it stands then we can at least be confident in our positions at the end.

I apologize. Sometimes my emotions are not as under-control as I hope
And you are right.

It's the informed consent part that is worrisome.

I 100% agree.

It wouldn't be informed consent if money is being used to coerce participation.

I think that depends on what's implied by the term "coerce."
If you just mean "if money is involved at all" then I don't agree.
If you mean something along the lines of "if money is being used to make people stop asking questions and impede the right of informed consent (as I defined it above)" then I do agree.

Even then, our society and views on personal freedoms have taken the position that some coercion is ok, so I'm not sure where to draw the line.

I'm not so concerned about what society thinks on moral issues.
I'm more concerned about what I think, since I am the only one I can control.

That said, I don't think that any coercion is okay if it means "impeding the right of informed consent" as I defined above.
And, on the other side, I don't think any coercion exists (no matter how much money is involved) as long as informed consent exists as I defined above.

Perhaps the best people to ask are ex-football players who are suffering from brain injuries and get their views.

I think this is a mandatory (at minimum) place to get some information.

But I do think the information obtained from them would have to go through some proper filters.

I am under the impression that they have, basically, been swindled. They did not have "informed consent" (as I defined above) as they were not really aware of the possible injuries and concussion trauma when they signed into the league 10 to 20+ years ago.
I would assume that they would be incredibly biased in putting the line much closer to "no one should be doing this" than it really should be.

Now, if we took their information in order to try and ask "what sort of methods would you think might allow for more informed-consent so that others can a closer-to-fully-informed decision that you were robbed of..." then I think that would be a much better start for "finding the line."

And I think their stories should be made easily-available to anyone considering entering the league.
I think anyone attempting to prevent them from speaking or giving them hush-money or anything like that should be tossed in jail.

Perhaps the best people to ask are ex-football players who are suffering from brain injuries and get their views.

Yes, the players and even their families would have relevant opinions, particularly after finding out what suffering from CTE is really like. Maybe those opinions are the most informed.

I don't accept that there is no moral component involved as long as players consent of their own free will. I think we should acknowledge that we allow folks to make some choices that are morally questionable in a free society, while we do not let folks make other morally questionable choices. We don't allow folks to sell their body parts for profit, but we do allow folks to damage their brains for similar motivation and for a lot less benefit to humanity.

I am sure somebody could distinguish between the two cases, or alternatively make the argument that selling your organs out to be allowed. I'd be really interested in hearing a case made covering that aspect. But the idea that consent addresses all issues is not one that society currently entertains. Maybe I'm not liberal enough...

Stile writes: Let's assume it's okay to make a consensual decision to be harmed "for fun." Like BDSM sex. Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed in football "for fun?" - no money involved, even up to the level of the NFL.

I wouldn't have a problem with people electing to play football where there is no financial incentive. The interesting part is that almost no one does that. 18 year old kids use football as a tool to get a college diploma, and some then move on to pro football. What happens to those college graduates who don't move on to pro football? Do they play in amateur leagues for the next 10 years? I would hazard a guess that very few do play in amateur leagues. So why is that?

I think that depends on what's implied by the term "coerce." If you just mean "if money is involved at all" then I don't agree. If you mean something along the lines of "if money is being used to make people stop asking questions and impede the right of informed consent (as I defined it above)" then I do agree.

Here is an interesting tidbit from a peer reviewed paper:

"The practice of offering payment to research participants exhibits a tension between the aims of investigators to recruit subjects and the aims of IRBs to protect them by determining the ethical acceptability of protocols and payment schedules. On the one hand, payment is offered – nearly universally to healthy participants and increasingly to patient participants – to incentivize enrollment and compensate for participation.1 On the other hand, institutional guidance often cautions against undue inducement through offers of payment, and anecdotal evidence suggests that members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and professionals involved in research oversight are concerned that payment may coerce or unduly influence prospective research participants, thereby compromising the voluntariness of consent."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4214066/

Right or wrong, this ethical and moral outlook is embedded in medical research, and being part of that world it has had some influence on me.

I am under the impression that they have, basically, been swindled. They did not have "informed consent" (as I defined above) as they were not really aware of the possible injuries and concussion trauma when they signed into the league 10 to 20+ years ago. I would assume that they would be incredibly biased in putting the line much closer to "no one should be doing this" than it really should be.

I think they could tell us if the money they made was worth the damage they suffered. If anyone would know, they would. Or maybe they will say that the money was worth it, who knows?

NoNukes writes: We don't allow folks to sell their body parts for profit, but we do allow folks to damage their brains for similar motivation and for a lot less benefit to humanity.

That's a really good concept to bring up.

I admit I was all "well, we shouldn't allow people to sell body parts..."

And then the question-of-the-day hit me... why?

I think it still all comes down to consent and being able to ensure such consent is fully informed.

Have you ever heard of BIID?
It's, basically, the idea that people exist who have such an issue with their own body part(s) that they want them amputated/removed.

If such a person really, truly existed... it would only be moral to allow them to cut off their limb.
If such a situation existed... what's wrong with allowing such a person to make some money off of it?

Of course there's the socially-natural (conditioned?) response going "eww... that's gross... they're going to regret it... don't let them do it!!"
But, if that's the only negative against the idea... some huge level of "personal disapproval"... but still nothing more than personal disapproval of someone else's decision... then I say that's not enough to stop someone from doing something they truly decide as a mature adult.

But even saying that... I'm still not for allowing people to sell body parts.

And again, back to the question-of-the-day... why not?

Because I have a reason that goes beyond personal-disapproval, and it's again related to (wait for it...) informed consent!

I propose that if someone claims to have informed consent, and thinks they truly want their limb cut off... and go through the procedure... and then, say, 10 years later, really regret the procedure... then there is some strange level of "informed consent" that wasn't there originally.
This MUST be done only by the individual in question. Their feelings about the matter are the only thing of importance.

Now, isn't it possible that someone wants to remove a limb, and goes through with it, and 10 years later they're still happy with their decision?
Yes. I would say this is possible.
And the rest of their life they're still happy with the decision?
Yes. Still possible.
And, for such a person, I would say that their decision was a good one for them.. and they should be allowed to make such a decision.. and I would defend their ability to have such a decision (even if they wanted to sell their limb for money).

And this is where it relates back to the football issue.

Now there's this strange area of "informed consent" relying on future-you-still-agreeing-with-the-deal.
That seems to apply directly to NFL players as well.

So how can we tell if people are going to regret their decision 10 years from now or not in order to allow them to make the decision or not?

I don't think we can.

However... if we can provide evidence that somehow shows a "significant number of people" would regret cutting off a limb in the future even though they think they want to right now... then I would agree to preventing the procedure from being a free choice. That is, I would agree to make it illegal.

And for the NFL:

If we can provide evidence that somehow shows a "significant number of people" would regret suffering from their football-related-injuries (including death) in the future even though they think they want to play anyway right now... then I would agree to making contact-football an illegal sport.

Also, there are more considerations.

How difficult is it to enforce the "informed consent?"
That is... it's is much easier for some mob-boss to lean on a poor schmuck and have them lop off their arm to pay their debt then it is of some mob-boss to lean on an NFL player and have them under-go-years-and-years-of-playing-and-cuncussion-damage to pay off their debt.
Although neither scenario is "impossible."
Such differences should also be taken into account, I think.

If that seems reasonable... then we have more questions. What is "a significant number of people?" How many people would not regret such a decision? How do we even obtain this data?

Those players hurt after playing in the NFL seem like a great source of information... and I agree that information should be obtained by speaking with them and hearing their stories. But... they did not have the "informed consent" that's available today. Therefore... although their information should be deemed important, and included... I don't think it should be deemed all-important.

Taking it all into consideration... my current gut feeling is that selling-limbs should be illegal because:

-There is a high risk of regretting the decision.
-There is a high risk of immediate abuse (mob boss type stuff).
-It is extremely difficult to provide "informed consent"

...But I fully admit I could be wrong (it's not like I have any hard data). And I'd be willing to see some information and adjust my position accordingly along these guidelines.

And, my current gut feeling for the NFL is that it should still be legal because:

-There is a medium risk of regretting the decision.
-There is a low risk of immediate abuse (mob boss type stuff).
-It is difficult (but not extremely difficult) to provide "informed consent"

...And, again, I fully admit I could be wrong. And I'm willing to see information and adjust my position accordingly along these guidelines.

This post definitely needs some Minnemooseus added to it:

"...or something like that."

Taq writes: I wouldn't have a problem with people electing to play football where there is no financial incentive. The interesting part is that almost no one does that.

Agreed. I didn't intend for that idea to go beyond the simple though experiment of "what if..." to help show where the line might be.

Right or wrong, this ethical and moral outlook is embedded in medical research, and being part of that world it has had some influence on me.

Again, I'd like to point out that I agree the IRB has a place, and that their job is difficult.

I'd just like to point out that even the IRB doesn't say it's immoral just because "money is involved." They say:

quote:

---

and anecdotal evidence suggests that members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and professionals involved in research oversight are concerned that payment may coerce or unduly influence prospective research participants

(bolding by me)

---

And, again, I completely agree over a concern about the money in the NFL and how it may influence consent.

In fact, I would fully support the idea of an IRB-like system in the NFL reviewing the amount players get paid and attempting to study/understand/control the influence it has on their consent.

I just don't take any of this to mean anything along the ideas of "if money is involved, consent is impossible."

I think they could tell us if the money they made was worth the damage they suffered. If anyone would know, they would. Or maybe they will say that the money was worth it, who knows?

I think it's a very good question to ask.
I think it should be asked to those who suffered damage and those who didn't suffer damage.
I also think it should be assumed that any who died significantly early and can't answer would say it was "not worth it" to them. Even if for a select few it possibly was. (I do agree with erring on the side of caution, to a certain degree).

And, my current gut feeling for the NFL is that it should still be legal because:

That's fine. I agree that football should be legal. I don't agree that there should be a crusade to end football. I'd also have no problem with the NFL dying out because folks find it disgusting.

If such a situation existed... what's wrong with allowing such a person to make some money off of it?

What's wrong with instead trying to convince them not to cut off their limbs? And what's right about applying incentives for people who are waivering over whether they should amputate?

I'll accept that your argument about informed consent being a powerful one, but throwing money into the situation because you want to encourage a behavior adds an extra element beyond consent and provides a risk of exploiting a class of people. It would be impossible to sort out who would have done it anyway after adding money into the mix.

So that, in my mind, the risk, or the practically guaranteed reality of exploitation, is a powerful argument for not allowing folks to sell their organs. I think we all know what group of people would end up in dominating the queue to give up body parts for dough; primarily, the powerless and poor -- folks who society cannot stoop to help so are forced to do whatever they can. The same folks who are already being exploited.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Stile writes: I just don't take any of this to mean anything along the ideas of "if money is involved, consent is impossible."

That's the sticking point. Does it have to be all or none in order to be immoral or moral?

I also think it should be assumed that any who died significantly early and can't answer would say it was "not worth it" to them. Even if for a select few it possibly was. (I do agree with erring on the side of caution, to a certain degree).

Tracking back to your BDSM example, what if there was the same amount of long term brain damage in those workers after just 5 years of doing the job? What if that brain damage was resulting in suicides and abuse of family? What if the only way they would have ever participated in any of that abuse was a $1 million yearly salary? I think I would have some serious reservations about letting people take those jobs.

And don't worry, I am also big on personal freedoms and personal responsibility. I COMPLETELY get what you are saying. Part of me just likes to pop up once in a while and ask "but what if you're wrong", and sometimes its fun to let it stretch its legs for a bit.

NoNukes writes: What's wrong with instead trying to convince them not to cut off their limbs?

Nothing. I would support such an attempt-at-convincing.
As I would support such an attempt-at-convincing anyone (everyone?) not to play football. I wouldn't support making football illegal, though... or saying it's "wrong" in some sort of implied-objective-sense.

And what's right about applying incentives for people who are waivering over whether they should amputate?

Nothing. However, I don't see an issue with someone deciding to, correctly, amputate their limb and also getting money out of it.

Is it possible to have one without the other? I don't know.
But it's certainly possible to talk about one without the other.

I'll accept that your argument about informed consent being a powerful one, but throwing money into the situation because you want to encourage a behavior adds an extra element beyond consent and provides a risk of exploiting a class of people.

My point is that the money isn't always for encouraging behaviour. It can simply be meant as compensation for a transaction.

I certainly agree, though, that sorting out the "consent" vs. the "exloitation" can be very difficult.

It would be impossible to sort out who would have done it anyway after adding money into the mix.

I also want to note that this can be said for a great many things, not just football or limb-severing.
It can be said about making a bet.
Or receiving money to offer more less-physical entertainment... like comedy or video games or movies or anything else.
Or even going to work.

Just because money can be an incentive doesn't mean it is.
Even if money is an incentive, it doesn't necessarily mean that's a bad thing (although it certainly could be).
Each of us can (and should) answer these questions for ourselves, and remember that others can (and should) do it for themselves as well.

You for you, me for me, others for themselves, and football players for football players.

And if enough people decide they don't want to watch football, and football dies away because there's no money in it (not because it's "wrong to play football for money") then I will agree that this was the way it should be.

That is, I also don't agree with propping up a sport (or company... ahem governments...) that cannot support itself.

So that, in my mind, the risk, or the practically guaranteed reality of exploitation, is a powerful argument for not allowing folks to sell their organs.

I agree.

I think there are 2 different kinds of exploitation, though. And it would be best to separate them.

1 - Along the lines of personal consent. The issues we've discussed on money impairing judgment, being able to have "fully informed" consent and all that.
This exploitation exists in both limb-severing as well as football.

2 - Along the lines of 3rd party intervention. Like a mob boss deciding he wants to sell other people's limbs for money. Capone can go around hacking limbs off of people who absolutely do not consent, and sell those limbs in the 'black market' for money.

But what about football? Although possible, I suppose, it would be much more difficult for a mob boss to decide he wants to sell a football player's... injuries? somehow? Capone can go around forcing people to play football who absolutely do not consent, and make money of it?

Although possible in each case. My point is that it is "far easier" to 3rd-party-exploit the limb-severing than it is the football-playing.

That's why I'm against selling-limbs being legal.
And why I'm for football being legal.

Both have "exploitation issues," yes.
But it's obvious that there are far greater exploitation issues with one than the other.

I certainly agree, though, that sorting out the "consent" vs. the "exloitation" can be very difficult.

Possibly impossible. In any event, if you acknowledge that, then I think our disagreement is about whether that is enough of a reason for a making policy. I believe that it can justify not allowing things like operating a "body organs for cash" market. If we disagree about whether we should actually do that, I m fine with leaving the discussion there.

I also want to note that this can be said for a great many things, not just football or limb-severing. It can be said about making a bet.

I'm not interested in taking the discussion there. Some things should be allowed on that basis and others shouldn't. Tackle football should be allowed, but I am not going to participate or further the sport in any way.

Taq writes: That's the sticking point. Does it have to be all or none in order to be immoral or moral?

I don't think morality works in an "all or none" way for any situation.
I think morality is always on an individual basis and always on an ongoing evaluation.

What's good for me might be bad for you.
What's good for me today might be bad for me tomorrow.

I don't think there's anything that is "good for everyone, all the time." Or, at least, I've never heard of anything.

Bringing this back to football, I think it's an individual thing.. and each and every football player needs to sort that out for themselves (informed consent).
Each and every coach needs to sort that out for themselves.
Each and every team-owner needs to sort that out for themselves.
Each and every fan needs to sort that out for themselves.

And no one's "sorting" (either way) affects any one else's... unless, of course, they want it to.

So it will end up a myriad of different goods and bads.

It's my argument that those who end up with a "good" should play/coach/own/be a fan.
And those who end up with a "bad" should stay away.

And everyone should allow everyone else to do whatever-they-think is best for themselves.

Tracking back to your BDSM example, what if there was the same amount of long term brain damage in those workers after just 5 years of doing the job?

Then this should be part of the BDSM "informed consent" and they should make their decision accordingly. Those who still decide it's "worth it" are just fine to do so... according to me.

What if that brain damage was resulting in suicides and abuse of family?

Anyone being abused (family/friends...) should decide for themselves if they want to consent to staying in a relationship with the abuser. I would get away. And the government has a duty to protect children from such things.

As for suicides... I've already talked about the issue of later-regretting-informed-consent. I agree that this is a serious issue. And it should be balanced appropriately against those who do not have a later-regretting-informed-consent.

What if the only way they would have ever participated in any of that abuse was a $1 million yearly salary?

This depends on if the money is used as enticement (exploitation) or compensation (simply a "yes" to informed consent.) As with the football, and your IRB's, this can be difficult to sort out as a 3rd-party. It really is only ever known to the individual, and all we get is what they communicate outward... which may be lying or ignorant to their actual thoughts/feelings. But this doesn't change the fact that the only one who can ever "really" know is the individual.

I think I would have some serious reservations about letting people take those jobs.

I only have reservations where informed consent is not available or being exploited. If it's used properly... then I don't have reservations for other's doing what other's want, even if it's something I wouldn't do for me.

I would not have reservations simply because such things occurred without knowing the details around how and why. If everything is done under fully informed consent... I don't see a problem.

Part of me just likes to pop up once in a while and ask "but what if you're wrong", and sometimes its fun to let it stretch its legs for a bit.

This thread has been very enlightening for me to work through as a thought-exercise, actually. Especially the part about severing limbs (!)

NoNukes writes: Stile writes: I certainly agree, though, that sorting out the "consent" vs. the "exloitation" can be very difficult. Possibly impossible. In any event, if you acknowledge that, then I think our disagreement is about whether that is enough of a reason for a making policy.

I agree that it's possibly impossible for everyone.
And extremely difficult for a 3rd-party.
However, the one it's most-possible for, and the only one it's possible to "actually know" for... is the individual in question.

I believe that it can justify not allowing things like operating a "body organs for cash" market. If we disagree about whether we should actually do that, I m fine with leaving the discussion there.

I agree with not allowing a "body organs for cash" market.

However, not for this reason of consent vs exploitation.
Only for the additional reason of 3-rd party exploitation (mob boss selling body parts of other people against their will) that realistically cannot exist in the NFL.

Tackle football should be allowed, but I am not going to participate or further the sport in any way.

To me, this is exactly the kind of decision we should each be making (including football players). Decide for ourselves, and let other's do the same.