Violence, Virtue, Masculinity, and Martial Arts

There’s a not-so-small subset of the martial arts community–particularly within Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and MMA–that believes quite ardently that violence is a virtue. Relatedly, they tie this “virtue” to masculinity. If you have any familiarity with online BJJ social media accounts and podcasts, you’ll know what I’m referring to. I find these views quite perplexing and troubling for a variety of reasons.

As someone who holds a black belt in judo and a brown belt in BJJ, I’m not arguing against martial arts training or the cultivation of physical prowess – far from it. Rather, I’m advocating for a return to a more complete vision of martial arts practice and masculine development, one that aligns with classical ideas about cultivating harmony between physical, intellectual, and moral excellence. What’s at stake isn’t just the future of martial arts culture, but the wellbeing of the young men who are increasingly drawn to these oversimplified and potentially harmful ideas about violence, virtue, and what it means to be a “real man.”

To begin, we need to understand what a virtue is. Once we understand what a virtue is, we can evaluate whether violence is a virtue. Finally, we can explore the relationship between violence and aspirational conceptions of masculinity.

What’s a Virtue?

The classic account of virtue begins by process of elimination; i.e., by explaining what virtue is not. We begin with the main contenders: Feelings/emotions, desires/appetites, actions, and states.

Feelings/emotions are not virtues: Aristotle writes that virtue is not a feeling, emotion, or anything that implies pleasure or pain (Bk I. 5. 2). We praise and blame people for virtues (or vices) but we don’t praise or blame people merely for having feelings or emotions. We praise or blame them for how well the magnitude of their feeling fits with a particular situation. For example, we don’t praise or blame people merely for being angry but for being angry at the right things, in the right amount, for the right reasons.

The capacity to have certain feelings/emotions isn’t virtue: Merely having the capacity to feel anger, love, sadness, compassion, and so on are not targets of praise and blame–but the virtues are. Therefore, capacities to have certain emotions or feel certain things are not virtues either.

What virtue is about: Virtue is about feelings, appetites/desires, and actions. Excessive indulgence of emotions, appetites, and actions is blameworthy and associated with vice. But complete negation of our emotions, appetites, and action is also blameworthy and associated with vice.

It follows that a virtue must be a kind of state, but what kind? A virtue is state of character that is the mean between two extremes–each of which is a deficiency or an excess.

For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness. The cowardly person has excessive fear and is deficient in confidence. The reckless person has insufficient fear relative to a particular risk and has excessive confidence. A courageous person (i.e., someone with the virtue of courage) possesses confidence appropriate to their abilities and caution appropriate to a particular risk. The extremes on either end of the mean are vices, or states of poor character while the mean is a state of excellent character.

By “mean,” Aristotle does not intend arithmetic mean. The virtuous person does not seek moderation in all circumstances, but seeks to feel, desire, or act in the way appropriate to a particular situation. In contemporary language, we say that their emotions/desires/actions are “apt” or “fitting.”

For example, courageous people are appropriately afraid of serious danger and if the cause is not worth the danger, they will retreat. But if the cause is significant, their fear will not prevent them from standing firm. Critically, the courageous person assess each situation and displays the courage appropriate to that situation.

The same is true of love, anger, generosity, pride, loyalty, jealously, and so on. The virtuous person displays the amount of an emotion, appetite, or action appropriate to each situation and considers the object of the emotion/appetite, the reasons for the action, the goal of the action, and the particular circumstances.

Hence, virtue is intrinsically associated with knowledge, deliberation, and our rational nature. It has to do with knowledge of what is right, choosing to do what is right, and acting according to that knowledge and choice.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to how courageous, angry, generous, kind, loyal, temperate, prudent, etc… one should be that applies to every situation. The apt amount of each will depend on the particulars of each situation. Hence, what unifies the virtues is that they are forms of practical wisdom (phronesis).

Practical wisdom is (hopefully) acquired over time. Therefore, people are not born with virtues but rather their development requires diverse experience, mentors/models from which to learn, feedback over time, and motivation to be virtuous.

Rightness vs Virtue

There’s a difference between an action being morally right and an action being virtuous. Consider the following example: I see an old lady struggling to cross the street. I go over and help her. The action is right but not necessarily virtuous.

Recall that a virtuous action (e.g., acting kindly) must be the consequence of acting for the right reasons, in the right amount, for the right purpose, at the right time, etc… There are many reasons for which I could have helped the old lady across the street, not all of them good. Maybe I did it to impress someone I was with. Or I wanted to video it to post on social media to get ‘likes.’

Similarly, children often know how to express gratitude, but although they are right to say “thank you,” they do it because they are told to–i.e., not necessarily for the right reasons, the right ends, in the right amount, etc…Therefore, their gratitude is right but not virtuous.

Virtuous actions come from virtuous people, where virtues are stable states of character. That is to say, virtuous action arise from people who reliably act for the right reasons, the right motivations, in the right amount, in the right circumstances. Virtuous people reliably display a kind of practical wisdom.

Is Violence a Virtue?

Now that we know what a virtue is we can asses the claim that violence is a virtue. This is pretty straight forward when we apply the definition of a virtue: it is a state in which a person reliably feels, desires, or acts towards the right objects, for the right reasons, in the right amount, and in the right circumstances.

Violence is a kind of action. But violence, without any kind of qualification, cannot be a virtue. It doesn’t take much effort to think of examples in which someone acts violently but we do not think that the action is virtuous. People can act violently for bad reasons, without knowledge of what is right, in excessive amounts, with the wrong goals, and at the wrong targets. So, on the simplest interpretation violence is not a virtue.

Another interpretation of what these people mean is that the capacity for violence is virtuous. Again, as we saw above, merely having the capacity for an emotion, desire, or action is not praiseworthy or blameworthy. No one, upon reflection, believes that merely being able to act violently is, on its own, virtuous. What matters is how, why, and when that violence is deployed or withheld.

If I act violently, people will ascribe moral blame or praise depending on the target of my violence, the goals of my violent action, the reasons justifying my violent action, the magnitude of my violent action, and the particular circumstances surrounding my violent action. If the target, goals, reasons, magnitude, etc… of my violent action do not survive critical appraisal, they will not be considered virtuous–nor can I be considered a virtuous person.

Merely having the capacity for violence is not a virtue. Those who claim that it is a virtue are not only wrong but their view is harmful when large numbers of impressionable young (and not-so-young) men take it seriously.

Violence and Masculinity

The most charitable interpretation of the view that these martial arts influencers espouse is something like this:

The protector argument: There is a traditional conception of masculinity in which it is the social role of the man to be a protector. To be a protector you must have a capacity for violence. Hence, the capacity for violence is a masculine virtue. If you have no capacity for violence, then you cannot fulfill the protector role. If you cannot fulfill your social role, then you are not fully a man.

I’m not one to police gender roles so if adopting some version of traditional gender roles gives your life meaning, do it. But let’s think this through a bit more.

Before really jumping in, I want to point out–because I’ll come back to it–that the protector argument implies that there is a set of traits necessary to be considered masculine. If you are deficient in one or more of these traits you are not fully a man–you’re not a real man. Let’s call this the “real man” argument. Moving on…

What we learned above from Aristotle already provides guidance in assessing the virtuousness of the capacity for violence. To recap, merely possessing the capacity for violence does not entail that someone will use violence virtuously. Violence directed at undeserving people isn’t virtuous, violence disproportionate to a threat is not virtuous, violence for the wrong reasons and motivations isn’t virtuous, and violence in the wrong circumstances isn’t virtuous.

The capacity for violence can only be a virtue when wielded by a wise man. Hence, it is wisdom, not the capacity for violence, that is the primary virtue here. A unwise man with the capacity for violence can never use violence virtuously.

The protector argument implies that all men ought to develop the capacity for violence. This is what follows from the claim that a man without the capacity for violence isn’t fully a man.

Applied at the population level, this is a bad idea since it’s quite unlikely that most men (and women) are wise. (I mean, have you been on the internet?) And therefore, encouraging all men to develop their capacity for violence will lead to significance amounts of violence by unvirtuous and unwise men.

This is born out by US statistics on violence.

• ~88% of violent crime is perpetrated by men.
• ~90% of homicides are perpetrated by men.
• ~1 out of 9 men commit a violent crime (6x the rate of women).

Given these statistics, it’s hard to imagine how promoting a general norm for men to (further?) develop their capacity for violence is a good thing. Instead, it seems that men ought to be encouraged to be more temperate, wise, and just. But I digress…

The proponent of the protector argument can offer the following rebuttal:

“I never said all violence is virtuous. I mean violence is virtuous when used to protect women and children.”

Recall that virtue requires wisdom–it’s a kind of knowledge. Unfortunately, this rebuttal presumes that the men who develop the capacity for violence will also be wise in its application–using the violence only for it’s intended (virtuous) purpose. As the saying goes: that’s a lovely theory, it would be a shame if someone were to test it:

• About 4/5 victims of intimate partner violence are female.
• ~4.3/1000 women experience intimate partner violence/year.
• The vast majority of violence, rape, and assault against women and children is committed by a man who is close to them (intimate partner, family member, acquaintance.
• More stats on male violence against women and children

The percentage of violence, assaults, rapes perpetrated by complete strangers is very low. That is to say, if a woman or child is going to experience violence or abuse, it’s much more likely to be from their “protector” than it is to be from a stranger. Therefore, if the social goal is the safety of women and children, at the population level it is counterproductive to encourage men to cultivate their capacity for violence. Statistically, women and children are more likely to be at risk from their now well-trained partner.

What is a Real Man?

Let’s go back to the real man argument. Again, I’m not here to police gender norms. If you like the traditional conception of masculinity, I get it. I want to protect my wife and daughter from harm just like anybody else. However, I primarily disagree with the means by which this is best accomplished. I’ll return to this point in a moment. First, let’s zoom out briefly to examine popular contemporary norms surrounding masculinity.

I find myself increasingly perplexed when I hear the usual podcasting suspects and their followers talking about what it means to be a real man. To these men I want to ask:

How many of them can remove and replace a faulty alternator in their vehicle? How many can lead a woman around the dance floor? Remove and replace a toilet? How many can play an instrument? Write poetry? Read and knowledgeably discuss great philosophers, ideas, and literature beyond a few hackneyed quotes from books they have never actually read? Sing? Cook? Do calculus and formal logic? Speak another language?

Here’s the thing. People are generally self-serving when asked to define norms of any kind, and gender norms are no different. When you ask a man or woman to define the norms for their gender, they will almost invariably define them according to how they live. The man who spends his time at the shooting range will tell you a real man needs to be able to handle a gun.

For most of history, including my own youth, the above extended list were all elements of what it meant to be a real man. A real man was as proficient in the arts and literature as he was in combat, sport, and fixing a car. It’s only recently that the notion of what it means to be a “real” man has become comically one-dimensional.

There are literally men out there that think that manhood is primarily composed of shooting guns, being able to fight, driving big trucks, and eating meat. Within the historical context of what men where encouraged to aspire to, this is baffoonery. (Caveat: There has always been a baffoonish one-dimensional “ideal” of manhood along side richer one’s, but the one-dimensional one is increasingly prominent now in the US of A and especially in the internet mano-sphere).

Young men of the internet generation are been sold a dangerous lie about masculinity.

Plato is instructive here (I’m allowed to quote this because I’ve actually read The Republic many times!):

“He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar-athlete, the man of thought and the man of action.” Republic 410b-d (Book 3)

Here we have a nice summary of Plato’s philosophy regarding how one ought to live: We must strive for harmony in cultivating the various aspects of our human potential. When we overdevelop one cluster of aspects, we necessarily neglect others, leaving us malformed and incomplete.

The Real Man as Protector

Over-emphasizing the capacity for violence and physical development in men is exactly what too many influencers promote, leading many of them to be crude, vulgar, and savage. (Yes, I know they occasionally pay lip-service to other domains I’ve listed, but my point is about their emphasis and their claims about the significance of certain traits and behaviors to ideal masculinity).

Plato’s warning regarding the dis-harmonious development of the various aspects of human potential also speaks to the protector argument. Most men compelled by the protector argument live in neighborhoods in which the chances of a violent home invasion are vanishingly small.

For such men, poorly managed interpersonal conflicts are the most likely situation in which they may encounter violence. But here’s the thing, if violence is the only conflict resolution tool you’ve invested time developing, guess how you’re likely to attempt to resolve those conflicts?

There is a massive literature and many training systems for (non-violent) conflict resolution, de-escalation, and mediation. If you want to protect someone from violence (including your own violence), the best way is to invest in leaning how to manage conflict (including domestic conflict) in a way that avoids escalation into violence.

This should be obvious to any thinking person.

So, if we take the protector argument seriously, i.e., that it is a cardinal virtue of masculinity to protect women and children from violence, it follows that proponents of this view should study (and advocate for the study of) conflict resolution, de-escalation, emotional self-control, and mediation with at least as much vigor as they practice shooting guns or throwing up armbars.

The Cartoonish Man and Violence

A careful examination of these influencers’ social media presence and interviews reveals a troubling pattern. The people who espouse these narrow views of masculinity and its tight relationship to the capacity for violence LIKE violence. They WANT to use violence, NOT avoid it.

Look at their social media posts and listen to their interviews. I’ve seen these influencers publicly say that they WISH someone would “try that shit with me because then I’d have an excuse to unleash on them.” They are literally salivating over the opportunity to unleash violence.

Now tell me. Is this application of violence virtuous? Is the man who is eager for violence and takes pleasure in hurting others virtuous? Is he someone we should encourage to more fully develop his physical strength and combat skills?

This lust for violence is closely related to traditional masculinity’s troublesome relationship with the emotion of anger. It’s well established that it feels good to indulge one’s anger. Holding it back is hard and unpleasant.

But how does the virtuous man–i.e., the temperate and just man–manage his anger? Does he indulge his anger, or does he temper it? Hint: The virtue of temperance is the mean between indulgence and asceticism. To quote Seneca, “the sword of justice is ill-placed in the hands of the angry man.”

If these influences gave their twitter fingers a rest for a few hours and actually read some philosophy, they would understand that–with very few exceptions–every single theory of justice involves a notion of proportionality. Even their favorite book that they’ve never read maintains a commitment to proportionality (eye for an eye…).

How did this cartoonish one-dimensional version of masculinity come to be so culturally dominant–especially in the martial arts community (BJJ and MMA influencers, at least)? I don’t know, but here are some concluding thoughts…

Concluding Thoughts

I have no opposition to training in combat sports. I’ve done so my entire life. I freakin’ love training and competing, and I love going to the gym. If you want to learn martial arts for self-defense purposes, go for it (but, for the love of all that is Good and Holy, please learn some takedowns if self-defense is your goal).

We all have multiple different reasons for beginning our martial arts journey, and sometimes those reasons change along the way. What gets you in the door isn’t necessarily what keeps you coming back. That’s all good.

Here’s the thing. If your goal is to protect women and children, the best way to do that is to become wise in many ways. This means taking Plato to heart and avoiding malformation and deficits. It means developing your intellect, engaging in reflective practice and self-appraisal, investing in emotional development, participating in other hobbies, developing yourself as a parent and husband, and at bear minimum, reading some of the many excellent books on conflict resolution. It means cultivating the virtue of temperance and studying ethics.

Most of my training partners are outstanding fathers and husbands. They live and breathe for their families. But what makes them outstanding fathers and husbands has almost nothing to do with their BJJ skills and has much to do with how they spend their time outside the gym. Those are the things that make them “real” men.

Contemporary masculinity is bizarre in how one dimensional it is. To my female readers: Please! Us men are valuable for more than just our physical attributes and capabilities (Irony)! Yet, so prominent is the physical element of masculinity in contemporary American culture that you can’t swing a stick without hitting a TRT clinic.

So many men have bought the lie that masculinity is primarily bound up in our physicality that they are lining up to inject themselves with aRtiFiCiaL cHemiKilLz to maintain (the appearance of) their masculinity. We should strive instead for a concept of masculinity that doesn’t require medicalized gender affirming care.

I think most men understand that the cartoonish version of masculinity pushed by mano-sphere influencers is exactly that–cartoonish and one-dimensional. But us men need to do better. We need to call out these sophists when they diminish what could be a very rich conception of masculinity. Plato reminds us that one exists and has existed for a long-ass time: One that embraces and encourages pursuing harmony between our intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical development.

To be clear, this is not a call for the return of the conception of masculinity advanced by the ancient Greeks. We need to be careful of fetishizing the past. The ancient Greek conception of masculinity had its own problems, to say nothing of its misogyny. And even if it was suitable in ancient Greece, we inhabit a different world.

Nevertheless, learning about other historical and cultural models of masculinity can at least teach us that masculinity isn’t a fixed concept. It doesn’t come from sky. We, as men, have some control over what’s contained within it.

Moreover, us older guys need to speak openly about the pitfalls of the various models we grew up with. We need to let impressionable young men know there are other better, richer models out there. You can shoot guns and dance the cha cha. But please avoid doing both at the same time…

There’s a lot more to say about the relationship between contemporary conceptions of masculinity and martial arts, and whether becoming proficient in violence can support general moral development (a theme that dates back to the ancients) but I’ll end here for now. Perhaps, I’ll say more next post…