ABSTRACT
Critics of boxing insist that consent has limits, sometimes invoking the example of consensual gladiatorial death-matches. Some activities are too dangerous or perhaps just too immoral to be permitted. Is boxing a weaker but still condemnable version of the death-match – still too dangerous or immoral to permit? Is MMA even further down the moral line? This chapter provides a cautious defense of MMA against paternalistic and moralistic arguments. I argue that reflection on MMA sheds new light on the case against boxing as well as more general debates concerning paternalism and legal moralism.
