Gladiators

[Scar Face]

Well, I was in Latin class today, when my Teacher brought up a good point. He said that Romans had a totally different set of Morals than we do today, that they didn't find it wrong at all (At least not the majority) that men killed each other for their entertainment. He went on to say that today we find these things atrocious, but thats just the way it was at the time, that even after Rome fell, people found an interest in death. All you have to do is look at your T.V and you see death, for some reasons humans are fascinated by it. So, I have a few questions for you all:

1) Do you find Gladiators morally wrong? If so, would you go to watch anyways?

2) Do you find Fascination in death? If so, why?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

One, most gladiators do not die. Only in rare cases did they die, e.g. if their owner had had enough, maybe they had lost too much or were just disliked. So, would you watch boxing with swords? Of course!

[Medicus]

One, most gladiators do not die. Only in rare cases did they die, e.g. if their owner had had enough, maybe they had lost too much or were just disliked. So, would you watch boxing with swords? Of course!

True. Most of the deaths that people went to see were slaves and prisoners, etc.

[Wibbler]

In the smaller arenas gladiators were unlikely to be killed, but in big Emperor-sponsored events people wanted blood. I wouldn't watch, just like I won't watch bull-fighting. Killing for food is ok, but killing for entertainment is not in my book. I see no fascination in death either, eventually we die and nothing happens. Nothing fascinating about that to me..

[The Good]

I would watch a gladiatorial fight if they showed it. It would be neat to see the fighting, but I would find the actual death unpleasant. Gladiator games are morally wrong, but some people, even in our own modern times, happen to enjoy that sort of thing.

[Roy Batty]

1) Do you find Gladiators morally wrong? If so, would you go to watch anyways?

No and yes. What could possibly be interpreted as immoral about two people consciously deciding to try and kill one another for the entertainment of others?

2) Do you find Fascination in death? If so, why?

In a manner of speaking. Most definately. I like action movies and violent video games.

[Scar Face]

No and yes. What could possibly be interpreted as immoral about two people consciously deciding to try and kill one another for the entertainment of others?

Well, it usually wasn't a conscious decision. The majority of Gladiators were criminals or Slaves. I don't think many could make the argument that its morally wrong what the Gladiators were doing, it is their job, and rarely a choice. However, it is morally wrong and rather 'barbaric' (at least from todays standards) to watch these games go on. Would I watch it? Of course. I know a lot of things are morally wrong, that doesn't mean I'm not going to do them. If I have fun, or it is to my benefit, morality goes right out the window. Morality to me is a guideline of how I should live, not a rule.

[Justice and Mercy]

1) Do you find Gladiators morally wrong?

No.

2) Do you find Fascination in death?

No.

[MasterAdnin]

Once Marilyn Manson described watching football games as "Rome all over again," and I feel its true. I believe that in another 500 years, people will look back and think how barbaric we were for watching sports such as that. Maybe it will take longer, maybe shorter, but generally, that is what is going to happen.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Justice and Mercy]

Once Marilyn Manson described watching football games as "Rome all over again," and I feel its true. I believe that in another 500 years, people will look back and think how barbaric we were for watching sports such as that. Maybe it will take longer, maybe shorter, but generally, that is what is going to happen.

Salaam,
Adnan

People are stupid.

In reality, who cares what they think?

[Trax]

Well, it usually wasn't a conscious decision. The majority of Gladiators were criminals or Slaves.

No, not really. Many real gladiators had signed a contract in search of money and glory. You really can't call those criminals, who suffered damnatio ad bestias , gladiators.

This old thread in VV deals with the same subject.

If I'm allowed to quote myself

Almost all gladiators were volunteers even in case they were slaves of prisoners of war or convicts (ca 2/3) You just cant make a man give a quality perfomance unless he is willing to cooperate.

[Scar Face]

No, not really. Many real gladiators had signed a contract in search of money and glory. You really can't call those criminals, who suffered damnatio ad bestias , gladiators.

Ok, I'll give you that. Perhaps a great deal of them were willing participants, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would rather be Free Men in their own lands than [potentially] rich Gladiators in a foreign country. They were victims of circumstance, they had to make the best out of it and achieve a living, and that happened to be in the Arena for many.

Good thread by the way, kinda makes you long for the old days, huh?

[LegionnaireX]

Once Marilyn Manson described watching football games as "Rome all over again," and I feel its true. I believe that in another 500 years, people will look back and think how barbaric we were for watching sports such as that. Maybe it will take longer, maybe shorter, but generally, that is what is going to happen.

Salaam,
Adnan

There is quite a big difference between football ( I assume American?) and gladiator fights. For one, people don't attend to kill each other. Only if the world turns into a bunch of weak ass pansies wil football ever compared to gladiatorial games.

[Trax]

There is quite a big difference between football ( I assume American?) and gladiator fights. For one, people don't attend to kill each other. Only if the world turns into a bunch of weak ass pansies wil football ever compared to gladiatorial games.

I you want a description of such a world read Stanislav Lem's Return from the Stars

Not exactly a nice place.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I would definitely watch a Gladiator Match. It would be spectacular.

I am semi-fascinated with death, but more of the Philosophical, life after death part.

[Richard]

Well, I was in Latin class today, when my Teacher brought up a good point. He said that Romans had a totally different set of Morals than we do today, that they didn't fight it wrong at all (At least not the majority) that men killed each other for their entertainment. He went on to say that today we find these things atrocious, but thats just the way it was at the time, that even after Rome fell, people found an interest in death. All you have to do is look at your T.V and you see death, for some reasons humans are fascinated by it. So, I have a few questions for you all:

1) Do you find Gladiators morally wrong? If so, would you go to watch anyways?

2) Do you find Fascination in death? If so, why?

Men kill each other today for stupid reasons and we don't find it morally wrong, no different from Romans not having an issue with condemned men and slaves fighting to the death. For instance, people in the military (or at least, engaging in warfare). I think the most sensible way to look at morals is "don't do something to someone you wouldn't like done to yourself and is against their will" unless your very survival, or someone elses, is at stake. Murder, rape, assault, theft...are immoral, they tend not to benefit the species or the victim a hell of a lot and we wouldn't like them to happen to us. Things like tax, that we don't like but have others "do to us" are different because they benefit us in the long term. We know this so willingly let ourselves be taxed. Assasination we tend to frown on because we wouldn't like it if we were going to be assasinated. Imprisonment? We wouldn't like it done to us, but accept it because those people might otherwise harm us if they were just let off. Death penalty and such things are going too far though, there is no benefit to us or society whether someone is dead or in prison. If I murdered someone, I would expect to go to prison. I don't have a problem with that. Things like the military, where it may be percieved to be protecting the tribe/species/whatever are a bit less clear cut as both sides think they're doing the right thing. I personally say they're both doing the WRONG thing, but if one does nothing then they're going to get hurt so feels compelled to act in defence.

Things that hurt NO ONE, say gladiatorial videogames, are not immoral. Why should they be? I suppose they might be percieved as promoting deviant behaviour but I don't agree with that.

[joerd9]

I've read that usually 1 out of 8 gladiators died in the arena, although we have writings of Seneca that paint a different and very bloody picture, so I'm not too sure about the death quota. But most probably it wasn't as deadly a game as common imagination has it.

I personally would go and watch it, preferably in one of the bigger arenas, but probably not too often, since I don't watch boxing matches too often either.
Since there's death as a strong possibility involved, they surely are unethical these days and I myself am not too interested in watching death happen...

[basics]

It is a strange thing that humans have a morbid curiosity towards death. Take traffic accidents or suchlike and see the milling crowds pointlessly just standing watching as though transfixed at the sight of the dead. Even to a lesser extent the thousands who go to motor racing for the " thrills and spills " perhaps in anticipation of a great pile up and perhaps death.

The only difference between our day and that of Rome's is that their law allowed for such things whereas ours doesn't and I'm talking here of gladatorial contest. We have boxing both with rules and without, the latter a step nearer to what Rome enjoyed. We have other combatative sports where the only separation from life to death are the rules. But the audience is still very much in favour so not much really has changed.

To see someone die is not pleasant but to watch as two parties try to kill each other is worse, at least for me it is. Gladiators like soldiers were/are trained to kill. Perhaps most were once military men but the strangest thing of all they were/are not necessarily filled with the hate that makes many men indulge in killing during war. They were coerced out of having not much choice in the matter.

So if the laws were relaxed that say murderers today were used in the fashion of gladiators would they attract the crowds that were in attendance at Rome? I think that there is enough evidence today to say that they would. Would I attend? I don't think so.

[Henry of Grosmont]

This thread reminds me something:

Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavour
It happens to be like;
Killed by the husband
Drowned by the ocean
Shot by his own son
She used the poison in his tea
And kissed him goodbye
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies

I need to watch things die
From a good safe distance.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Good topic Scar Face.

Clearly the gladiators were part of a system moral to the Romans, but today it's immoral. But if they had free will in fighting, I suppose it would be moral? As someone mentioned, boxing with swords...makes sense.

I'm torn on whether I'd watch it. On one hand, I'd say yes, as I think I have a morbid fascination. But on the other hand every time I watch something that presents violence realistically (Band of Brothers most recently) I have trouble stomaching it even though I'm entertained.

That said, I still watch it with the thought in the back of my head that it could help me one day if there was an accident and I saw some blood/guts...

So yeah I'd watch it, who am I kidding.