Fights, rights, and the self-defense economy
Mixed martial arts foster valuable self-defense know-how, especially for novices
Please like, share, comment, and subscribe. It helps grow the newsletter and podcast without a financial contribution on your part. Anything is very much appreciated. And thank you, as always, for reading and listening.
Disclaimer: This is a short version of a chapter forthcoming in Fighting and Philosophy edited by Kevin L. Houser and Joseph J. Lynch (Cal Poly)
They have cleaned up the sport to the point, at least in my view, where it is not human cockfighting any more. I think they've made significant progress. They haven't made me a fan, but they have made progress.
—The Late Senator John McCain of Arizona
I’d probably be cooking meth if I wasn’t a UFC Fighter.
—Sean Strickland, UFC fighter and former middleweight champion
The two things I understand best are stand-up comedy and martial arts. And those things require an ultimate grasp of the truth. You have to be objective about your skills and abilities to compete in both.
—Joe Rogan, UFC commentator and former fighter
People have the right to self-defense. They have the right to use their bodies—if necessary, even lethal force—to fend off unjustified violence. But knowing how to defend yourself? That’s trickier. Especially when the world is saturated with fake martial arts that look impressive but collapse under pressure. That’s the know-how problem.
Learning how to fight as a layperson is morally hazardous. Most people can’t tell the difference between a legit self-defense system and a flashy scam. Sometimes the consequences are comic (see The Men Who Stare at Goats). Other times fatal (Morgan 2020). And often it is someone with a black belt in something ornamental who gets steamrolled in a street altercation.
That is not to say everyone should become a cage fighter. But it does mean that, if people have a right to bodily self-defense, they must have some way of knowing what works. They need help sorting the signal from the noise.
Enter mixed martial arts (MMA). MMA works, I argue, as a decentralized and evolving epistemic economy of self-defense—a marketplace where information about real and effective fighting techniques gets stress-tested, filtered, and distributed. It’s not perfect or full spectrum self-defense knowledge. However, it is the best rough guide we’ve got.
That leads to my core argument:
If people have a right to self-defense, they also have a right to access the knowledge needed to exercise it. Banning or suppressing (excluding some regulation, e.g. for safety) MMA—either as a practiced art or professional sport—would infringe on that right. So, banning or suppressing MMA infringes in the right to self-defense.
The self-defense argument for MMA. But first, we need to address two moral objections, drawn from philosopher Nicholas Dixon. Both are important—and, I’ll argue, both are weaker than they seem.
2. Two Dixonian Objections
The Paternalist Objection
Dixon worries about fighters’ long-term autonomy. If you get repeatedly punched in the head for a living, you might lose future agency. Even if you consent now, are you arbitrarily trading your future self for present gain? Isn’t that, as Parfit (1984) puts it, like selling yourself into slavery?
Add to that Dixon’s concern about economic coercion. He argues fighters often come from limited means and might “choose” MMA because the alternative is worse. But here’s the catch: many fighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, and that suggests they do have other options (Ramsey 2021). Moreover, participating in MMA requires significant investment—gear, coaching, gym time—which likely prices out the poorest individuals.
Besides, banning MMA to protect these fighters doesn’t lift them out of hardship. It removes one of the few viable paths they do have. Think of price gouging in a disaster: ugly, sure—but outlawing it might make things worse (Zwolinski 2008).
The Kantian Objection
Dixon also argues MMA treats people as mere means. After all, hurting someone in the cage is the point. But that analogy breaks down. MMA isn’t assault; it’s rule-bound mutual combat. Fighters aren’t faceless tools—they’re partners, rivals, sometimes even friends. They shake hands. They train together. They admire each other.
And do not forget: many fighters choose this life to pursue greatness. Their consent is not confused or coerced. It is deep and identity-defining (Korsgaard 1996; Sheridan 2010). Refusing to acknowledge that choice out of philosophical squeamishness does more violence than any jab-cross combo ever could.
3. If You Don’t Know, Now You Know
The Right to Self-Defense
We’ve established the right to bodily self-defense. But rights rely on auxiliary rights (Wheeler 1999; Huemer 2003). Just as freedom of religion presupposes the ability to attend services or read sacred texts, so too does the right to self-defense presuppose knowing how to fight.
Without that know-how, the right becomes hollow. Denying access to that knowledge—even unintentionally—impoverishes the right itself.
Proof-of-Concept and Fighting Know-How
In engineering, a proof-of-concept shows something works in the real world (Elliott 2021). MMA functions the same way. It is not just theory. It is a form of trial by fire. If a technique fails in the gym or cage, it doesn’t survive. The Octagon is a crucible. Flashy nonsense gets melted away.
This is especially important for laypeople who can’t tell bullshido from the real deal. Hard-to-fake signals—like surviving a five-round war or submitting a trained opponent—cut through the noise (Zahavi 1975; Spence 1973).
The famed UFC commentator, Joe Rogan puts the point best:
There’s a tremendous amount of bullshit in martial arts… much less so now because of the new movement in the direction of mixed martial arts (2014).
You can’t fake skill under resistance. Iron sharpens iron.
Levels of Proof-of-Concept
There are two key levels here:
Technique-level: Does the style or move work in a real fight? If it never shows up in MMA, that’s a red flag.
Personalization-level: Does the technique work for you? This is a more individualized process, shaped by your body type, mindset, and training. It takes practice, experimentation, and guidance.
By analogy, fighting styles are like recipes and MMA is a constantly evolving test kitchen.
The Epistemic Economy of Self-Defense
MMA isn’t just sport—it’s a knowledge economy (Hayek 1945; Joshi 2021). Just as no one person knows how to build a pencil (Read 1958), no one person knows what works in self-defense. That knowledge is distributed, tested, and refined across gyms, camps, and fights.
This is specialization in action. And like all economies of scale, it creates epistemic leverage. You don’t have to know everything. You just have to know where to look—and MMA offers a rough but reliable compass.
4. Objections
The Self-Selection Objection
“But UFC fighters are too athletic to be self-defense guide for ordinary folks!”
Sure. But so what? You don’t study political philosophy because your government perfectly embodies Rawls. You study it because the ideal helps guide your behavior. MMA fighters aren’t blueprints—they’re beacons. They help you navigate.
And besides, the MMA world isn’t just the UFC. It’s local gyms, regional promotions, and sparring sessions with real consequences. The diversity of the ecosystem is what makes it work.
The Archive Objection
“What about YouTube? Why keep fighting if the knowledge is already out there?”
Because techniques evolve. Because bodies and styles vary. Because archives go stale without live testing. As one commentator noted:
MMA gyms have become combat laboratories, constantly producing different training systems and adding new elements (Diaz Combat Sports 2020).
You can’t archive innovation. You need a living system. And for many fighters, MMA isn’t just a job—it’s a calling. Taking that away in the name of safety? That’s moral overreach in the worst way.
5. Conclusion
Mixed martial arts is dangerous. It is brutal. It is messy. And it comes with moral and medical risks. But it produces something of immense value too: a living, evolving, decentralized knowledge economy of bodily self-defense.
Trying to shut that down—whether out of concern, moralism, or risk-aversion—would not just harm fighters. It would undermine the auxiliary rights underlying people’s fundamental right to defend themselves. MMA isn’t morally perfect. But it’s better than the alternatives. And if you don’t know, now you know.
References
Diaz Combat Sports. "The History and Evolution of MMA." Accessed February 7, 2025. Link
Dixon, Nicholas. "A Moral Critique of Mixed Martial Arts." Public Affairs Quarterly 29, no. 4 (2015): 365–384.
———. "Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism." Social Theory and Practice 27, no. 2 (2001): 323–344.
Elliott, Steve. "Proof of Concept Research." Philosophy of Science 88, no. 2 (2021): 258–280.
Hayek, Friedrich A. "The Use of Knowledge in Society." American Economic Review 35, no. 4 (1945): 519–530.
Huemer, Michael. "Is There a Right to Own a Gun?" Social Theory and Practice 29, no. 2 (2003): 297–324.
Joshi, Hrishikesh. Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind. Routledge, 2021.
Korsgaard, Christine Marion. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Morgan, Kai. "Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of 'Fake Female Empowerment' in the Martial Arts." Journal of Martial Arts Research 3, no. 3 (2020).
Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, 1984.
Ramsey, Marc. "The Line of Permissibility: Gladiators, Boxers, and MMA Fighters." In The Philosophy of Mixed Martial Arts, edited by Jason Holt and Marc Ramsey, 88–104. Taylor & Francis, 2021.
Read, Leonard E. "My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read." The Freeman 8 (1958): 32–37.
Rogan, Joe. "The Joe Rogan Experience #550: Rupert Sheldrake." YouTube. Accessed February 5, 2025.
Ronson, Jon. The Men Who Stare at Goats. Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Sheridan, Sam. The Fighter’s Mind: Inside the Mental Game. Grove Press, 2010.
Spence, Michael. "Job Market Signaling." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, no. 3 (1973): 355–374.
Wheeler, Samuel C. "Arms as Insurance." Public Affairs Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1999): 111–129.
Zahavi, Amotz. "Mate Selection—A Selection for a Handicap." Journal of Theoretical Biology 53, no. 1 (1975): 205–214.
Zwolinski, Matt. "The Ethics of Price Gouging." Business Ethics Quarterly 18, no. 3 (2008): 347–378.
>Technique-level: Does the style or move work in a real fight? If it never shows up in MMA, that’s a red flag.
I think there’s truth to this, but a very important qualification needs to be made: Many of the most effective self defense techniques are explicitly banned in sanctioned MMA bouts.
As a huge fan of combat sports, and someone who’s been in/seen more street fights than I’d like, I think illegal techniques such as eye gouging/raking, groin strikes and particularly head butts and kicking downed opponents are among the very best self defense techniques but are never seen in MMA.
In a surprising respect, this is one way MMA also contributes to practical fight knowledge.
For instance, even just ten years ago, the calf kick wasn’t a common technique in MMA. General wisdom held that a leg kick was far more effective targeting the larger muscles of the thigh. But pioneers like former lightweight champion Benson Henderson demonstrated how even a single well placed calf kick could disable the leg more quickly. It caught on. Unfortunately, this technique also greatly increased the risk that the kicker might suffer a catastrophic injury to his own leg if the kick is checked, and this was reflected in a rash of compound fractures and devastating breaks that occurred in high-profile bouts. This was bad for the sport. If fighters can’t develop the technique to where it isn’t quite so risky, it could become regulated by the governing bodies in the same way that head butts and eye gouges were.
When MMA or Ultimate Fighting first came out it was phenomenal to watch. I still remember brawlers like Tank Abbot. But then it evolved into grappling or wrestling matches, which many of us find boring. I wish they had rules against anything beyond the briefest wrestling.