Cause and effect
Posted: December 7th, 2006, 6:46 pm
The purpose of the martial arts is to teach people how to fight. If you want to learn how to fight well you need to understand the principles involved in what you are doing. One of the prime principles is cause and effect. If I move this way or that, what will be the consequence of doing so. How will the other person respond, how will I respond, what can I respond with.
The reason why you are learning how to fight will guide how you evaluate the consequences. If you are wanting just to hurt people, then you will look for the actions which cause the most hurt. If you are looking more for self defense, then you will look for those actions which will promote that.
If a teacher is interested in teaching self defense, especially in the US, then that teacher will be most likely to promote the idea of causing the least amount of harm necessary to defend oneself. Part of the reason for this is because of the legal ramifications of defending oneself. If you use excessive force to defend yourself, then the attacker could go after you legally and sue you for damages. This would be counter productive to the idea of self defense, because while you may have protected yourself physically, you opened yourself for another type of attack which could be just, if not more damaging. Plus the teacher could become liable as well depending on how he taught his students and if he advocated violence.
So in response, I do not think that the teacher is obligated to teach morality and ethics to the students. But this does not remove the responsibility of the consequences of that choice. Not only that, but you have to consider the purpose of the teacher in teaching just as you have to consider the student's purpose for wanting to fight.
The reason why you are learning how to fight will guide how you evaluate the consequences. If you are wanting just to hurt people, then you will look for the actions which cause the most hurt. If you are looking more for self defense, then you will look for those actions which will promote that.
If a teacher is interested in teaching self defense, especially in the US, then that teacher will be most likely to promote the idea of causing the least amount of harm necessary to defend oneself. Part of the reason for this is because of the legal ramifications of defending oneself. If you use excessive force to defend yourself, then the attacker could go after you legally and sue you for damages. This would be counter productive to the idea of self defense, because while you may have protected yourself physically, you opened yourself for another type of attack which could be just, if not more damaging. Plus the teacher could become liable as well depending on how he taught his students and if he advocated violence.
So in response, I do not think that the teacher is obligated to teach morality and ethics to the students. But this does not remove the responsibility of the consequences of that choice. Not only that, but you have to consider the purpose of the teacher in teaching just as you have to consider the student's purpose for wanting to fight.