Martial arts sensei- lord of war?

[lgm]

Yesterday, I watched Nicolas Cage's "Lord of War" which is a film about gun running and gun dealing. Guns kill people and gun runners are often seen as "killers" too because they sell these guns that kill.

While watching the film, I could not help but compare Yuri (Nicolas Cage) to a martial arts (MA) sensei. Guns kill innocent people, but guns also save innocent people. Guns in themselves are amoral, they don't kill, but the users of guns do. Martial arts in itself is also amoral, it doesn't kill, but people who use martial arts may do so.

Now, like the gun dealer, a MA sensei also deals in (teaches) a deadly art of hand to hand fighting that can kill. In a way, he is similar to the gun runner. My question is: Is the MA sensei a "lord of war" too?

[Willannem]

I wouldn't compare a sensei to a gun runner. Gun runners engage in illegal activites and deal with people they know will use their wares to do harm. They are in it for pure profit for themselves and little more.

Senseis build character along with teaching people to defend themselves and/or compete in organized events. They teach people not to engage in combat unless absolutely necessary; the avoidance of war. If anything, you can call them 'Lords of Peace'.

[IcemanSK]

I wouldn't compare a sensei to a gun runner. Gun runners engage in illegal activites and deal with people they know will use their wares to do harm. They are in it for pure profit for themselves and little more.

Senseis build character along with teaching people to defend themselves and/or compete in organized events. They teach people not to engage in combat unless absolutely necessary; the avoidance of war. If anything, you can call them 'Lords of Peace'.

Willanem has it right. If Cage's character in the film calls himself "sensei" its only to make himself feel better about what he does. Martial arts sensei are builders of character, not destroyers of it.

[Pacificshore]

Gun running is illegal, while teaching martial arts is not

Using your martial skill to hurt or kill someone for the sake of it is immoral, while learning to develop yourself and protect yourself if necessary with your MA skills is not immoral

[lgm]

Senseis build character along with teaching people to defend themselves and/or compete in organized events. They teach people not to engage in combat unless absolutely necessary; the avoidance of war. If anything, you can call them 'Lords of Peace'.

Willanem has it right. If Cage's character in the film calls himself "sensei" its only to make himself feel better about what he does. Martial arts sensei are builders of character, not destroyers of it.

Martial arts senseis are so called because they teach the art of fighting, techniques of attack and defense. By profession, they are neither therapists nor preachers whose main job is personality development or character formation. If ever shaping of character is attempted by a MA sensei, usually the traditional type, it is only incidental or vicarious to his principal task, as the main bulk of his work as sensei remains to be still teaching technical skills of fighting to his students and making them highly efficient in SD or sports fighting competition. So, by profession, they are "lords of fighting" or in more dramatic term, "war", not lords of peace. In contrast, priests, rabbi, monks and the like are "lords of peace".

[IcemanSK]

Senseis build character along with teaching people to defend themselves and/or compete in organized events. They teach people not to engage in combat unless absolutely necessary; the avoidance of war. If anything, you can call them 'Lords of Peace'.

Willanem has it right. If Cage's character in the film calls himself "sensei" its only to make himself feel better about what he does. Martial arts sensei are builders of character, not destroyers of it.

Martial arts senseis are so called because they teach the art of fighting, techniques of attack and defense. By profession, they are neither therapists nor preachers whose main job is personality development or character formation. If ever shaping of character is attempted by a MA sensei, usually the traditional type, it is only incidental or vicarious to his principal task, as the main bulk of his work as sensei remains to be still teaching technical skills of fighting to his students and making them highly efficient in SD or sports fighting competition. So, by profession, they are "lords of fighting" or in more dramatic term, "war", not lords of peace. In contrast, priests, rabbi, monks and the like are "lords of peace".

While I agree with you that they hold a different purpose than rabbi, priests & monks, I disagree with you that MA instructors are "lords of war" as you put it. The principle behind every martial art I've ever heard of is self-defense rather than training a miltary force for military purposes. The martial arts themselves follow a moral code that instructs its members not to go looking for fights. I train students that, for some, I'm the only positive male figure in their lives. My goal is to get them to be great people, not great fighters. The boxing trainers at the community center where I teach & I all have that same thought. The kids who come to us aren't fighting on the streets anymore. They have something better to shoot for in their lives.

[Eric_]

An intriguing analogy, although I think that Willannem's statement best summed up the differences between a martial arts instructor and a gun runner. Just as a gun is a machine, so is a martial art a science. As a science or a machine, it possess as much ability to accomplish evil means as good. A good chemist can make a poison and a medicine with equal ease. Yet, even the poisons he produces are not without their benefits. Morphine, for example, is a toxin used to relieve injured persons of their pains. The morality of science, like that of a machine, lies in its application, or, more appropriately, in the intent behind it's application. A martial arts sensei does not teach his skill with the knowledge that it will be put to ill use, yet he has only the assumption that it will not be used maliciously. Both the gun runner and the martial artist provide people with both a means of defending themselves at the expense of their assailant's life or well-being, and tools capable of causing injury or death. The most likely situation is that the firearms will be used to cause harm, and the fighting skills will not. The one divider between these professions, then, is probability, and probability is entirely subjective. If the investment and possible return remain the same, how favorable must the odds of success be to make the venture worth the investor's risk, and how great must the prize be for the same wager and odds before a gambler places his bet?

Ah, the places this could be taken!

[lgm]

Both the gun runner and the martial artist provide people with both a means of defending themselves at the expense of their assailant's life or well-being, and tools capable of causing injury or death.

I completely agree. To put it more bluntly, both gun runner and martial artist provide people the means to defend themselves or attack others. If the gun the gun runner sells is used by the buyer to commit a crime, it's not the fault or crime of the gun runner, but the buyer and user of the gun sold. In the same token, if the martial arts skill learned by a MA student is used to attack and oppress others, it's not the fault or crime of the MA instructor, but the student. This should be unconditionally clear, otherwise all teachers are guilty or accessory to the crime when the technical skills they teach their students, even such simple skills as writing and computing, are used by their students for illegal or criminal activities.

The most likely situation is that the firearms will be used to cause harm, and the fighting skills will not.

I disagree. Most fighting skills are intended to cause pain, harm or even death to the attacker, but the purpose for doing so may either be for self-defense against criminal elements (considered justified or good) or unprovoked aggression towards innocent people (considered unjustified or bad).

[lgm]

Martial arts senseis are so called because they teach the art of fighting, techniques of attack and defense. By profession, they are neither therapists nor preachers whose main job is personality development or character formation. If ever shaping of character is attempted by a MA sensei, usually the traditional type, it is only incidental or vicarious to his principal task, as the main bulk of his work as sensei remains to be still teaching technical skills of fighting to his students and making them highly efficient in SD or sports fighting competition. So, by profession, they are "lords of fighting" or in more dramatic term, "war", not lords of peace. In contrast, priests, rabbi, monks and the like are "lords of peace".

While I agree with you that they hold a different purpose than rabbi, priests & monks, I disagree with you that MA instructors are "lords of war" as you put it. The principle behind every martial art I've ever heard of is self-defense rather than training a miltary force for military purposes. The martial arts themselves follow a moral code that instructs its members not to go looking for fights.

Fighting is an activity that can never be interpreted as peaceful. Fighting itself is violent and involves hurting others and being hurt by them. But, the purpose of fighting may be to achieve peace (considered positive) or total domination (considered negative). One must not confuse the means with the end or objective. They are not always equivalent or the same. Fighting as means is negative, but peace as objective is positive.

Having said that, MA instructors may be labelled as lords of war, but we are talking only of the means they teach to others. Fighting or war are negative means. But, then, MA instructors may teach fighting (negative) to achieve a justifiable or good objective, like self-defense or peace with others. Being dubbed as "lord of war" doesn't necessarily mean, one is bad or evil. One can be a lord of war and yet being one for a good end or one who wages war for a justifiable or noble end. If so, his rightful title is actually "good" lord of war. I hope people would not think that being lord of war is always bad?

I train students that, for some, I'm the only positive male figure in their lives. My goal is to get them to be great people, not great fighters. The boxing trainers at the community center where I teach & I all have that same thought. The kids who come to us aren't fighting on the streets anymore. They have something better to shoot for in their lives.

You have a noble mission. But, in case some of your students become rotten in the future and use the martial arts you taught them for criminal activities, don't feel guilty as this is beyond your control and it is not your fault at all. I hope you will not claim that your students will never use the martial arts skill that you taught for evil or criminal activities, because I won't believe you as you have no control over their future behavior in the same manner that you don't have control over their present behavior right now. (Lest I'm misunderstood, I used the term "you", but I meant to address this to everyone reading this post and not particularly directed to you, IcemanSK)

[White Warlock]

The differences are actually quite significant:

1. Guns are weapons... as are knives, sticks, rocks, monkeys with sling shots. The use of such items requires no skill, although skill can assist in making such weapons more effective.

2. Martial arts are studies, requiring extended periods of time developing. Without training, there are no weapons. The weapons themselves, are the person. But, that is not the totality of what is studied.

........

1. A gun runner sells a weapon.

2. A sensei sells a study, part of which includes development of oneself to function as a weapon, or to understand how to utilize external weapons.

.........

1. a gun runner makes a transaction, the product of which is irrelevant to the gun runner.

2. the sensei performs a service, the service of which is very relevent to the sensei.

--------

Time is the biggest factor here.

--------

1. a gun runner makes no time commitment. he is merely a merchant and his limited contact with the buyer provides almost no impact on the buyer and how he/she may utilize the product purchased.

2. a sensei makes a time commitment. Each student is given ample time and attention by the sensei. This, in and of itself, allows the sensei to influence the development of the person who will later be capable of wielding himself as a weapon.

..........

1. The moment of contact for a gun runner is minutes.

2. The moment of contact for a sensei is years, possibly decades.

..........

1. If the gun runner has morals, he would not be able to sell the product. Therefore, gun runners have no morals, or if they do have morals... they bury it in rationalizations (as Yuri does).

2. If the sensei has morals, he would be more able to succeed in maintaining and developing students.

3. If the sensei has no morals, he could very well provide an environment where the students exist merely to kill. This, however, is not the norm. In fact, it is exceedingly rare.

...........

1. The gun runner, because of his limited exposure to the buyer, likely has insufficient time (or inclination) to determine the buyer's motives or mindset.

2. The sensei, because of his lengthy exposure to the student, has ample time to determine the student's motives or mindset. If he were to disapprove of the student's motives, he could cut the student off from further studies in his/her particular school.... possibly from an entire community.

...........

1. The gun runner is 'assumed' to be dealing with criminals.

2. the sensei is 'assumed' to be dealing with upstanding citizens.

--------

Content is the second biggest factor here

--------

1. gun runners provide a manual and walk away. there is 'no' content, merely object.

2. Sensei provide a regimen for the arts, which consist of far more than merely developing oneself to function as a weapon.

The arts are a study in violence, but not merely the presentation of violence. It is also the cause and effects of violence, understanding of motives for commission of violence, a study in how to avoid circumstances which could force one to utilize violence, an examination of human interaction, and constant, daily, introspection into the motives, emotions, actions, triggers of oneself. It is not an external process, but an internal one. The process is not merely to memorize movements, but to understand those movements. In order to do so, one must understand oneself...

On the other hand, the only thing a person needs to know in order to fire a gun... is where the trigger is, where to put the bullets, how to chamber a bullet, and how to disengage the safety.

Five minutes max as opposed to five years minimum.

.......last points.......

* Commission of a crime with a gun, especially one illegally obtained, allows for little to no evidence at the scene of a crime.

* Commission of a crime with one's own body, or with a melee weapon, leaves ample room for plenty of evidence.

When it comes to the commission of a crime for obtainment of income, criminals will seek the easiest route. Spending five or more years learning a martial art, in order to mug thy neighbor, is not the easiest route. Far from it.