[taelrak]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If her father, who's also her kendo master, tells her not to use a move because it's too dangerous, I'd say that yes, she is morally bound not to use it. In all teaching of martial arts, it is generally implied, or explicitly stated, that you are taught how to hurt others on the condition that you don't misuse that knowledge, or use it recklessly. And the teacher, not the pupil, gets to decide what is reckless or not. There is an "implied consent" there, too.

That's not what implied consent means. It simply refers to the fact that Tamaki would not be liable at all to her opponent if she caused reasonable injuries to her, insofar as you can't intentionally hurt someone who's willing to be hurt and expressed that consent by taking part in an activity where it's reasonably foreseeable that injuries could result.

For the teacher-student thing: there is perhaps an agreement that a student who enters a relationship with a teacher has some sort of duty to follow reasonable guidelines set out by the teacher, including not to harm others with this knowledge. The idea is that you can breach the agreement at anytime without fault if you're willing to forego whatever the teacher offers you (usually teachings) [and are willing to pay a certain amount if there's some sort of expectancy, but that doesn't apply in this case where her sensei isn't being paid by her].

However, servitudes and restrictions on use of such knowledge itself after leaving this sense-disciple relationship simply won't work, insofar as it's almost completely intangible--even more so than most intellectual property. To claim that such restrictions run with the knowledge in rem is at best highly sketchy.

That's no excuse to go out of your way to endanger the other. Or yourself, for that matter.

Sure it is. It may even be justification. Let's posit that you are allowed a range of behavior within a certain moral range before your actions are seen as unreasonable. We can also suggest for the moment that, kendo, having a long tradition and kendo tournaments having structure rules, are aware of what constitutes acceptable behavior in participants. It is not a stretch to come up with that a fully allowed and legal move as within those guidelines would be seen as quite reasonable. If so, then any such "endangerment" is fully acceptable.

Yes. It went well. This time. Plenty of drink and drive without getting into an accident, too. Until they do.

Drunk driving is an act that is viewed as wrong in and of itself. Tamaki's move is viewed as perfectly legal and fine.

However, the stiff penalties come only when there is actual harm caused. In a drunk driver causing an accident - there is harm caused. In Tamaki's case, there isn't.

Why don't we punish all drunk drivers for attempted murder - since they have no control of their actions on the road and thus it's only sheer lottery that some who get into accidents get a murder charge? It's because we do distinguish results, however inaccurate a measure it may be.

That's very nice if all you want is to win the match. Is Tama like that? It certainly wasn't what she was taught. She never even showed any interest in competing till she entered high school, and we all know why she joined the club, and why she sticks around. It never was about the medals.

That's true, but you're saying this as if anger and the desire to vindicate and punish are bad things. The point was merely that neither of those feelings in and of themselves without a corresponding result are innately bad.

Although society in generally doesn't encourage "self-help" in people who see injustices, that's not to say all such behavior is discouraged. Here, we have a girl who is stronger than the other deciding to punish the other using a fully legal move in a situation where serious bodily harm "may" be possible, but which did not happen. In fact, we can't even say that such bodily harm is substantially possible.

There is nothing wrong with using anger.
There is nothing wrong with punishing someone you don't like within accepted boundaries of the situation you're in or within societal norms.

I'm not saying ends justify the result, or that we should discount the fact that serious bodily harm could have occurred - but absent any real way to measure this, the ultimate result that occurred is probably the best indication we have.

You make the argument that this situation should be judged by ends, that no harm no foul. That is valid, yet we must also consider the means. Recall that kendo is meant to provide a place for one to test himself and improve. Tamaki, by giving in to emotion, would be failing herself.

This need for self-reflection is at the heart of kendo. An experienced practitioner of a martial art would agree that to master oneself is to master others; indeed, there is probably no other way. The tournaments and contests are meant to be guideposts along the way, not the goal.

I disagree about the emotion part. The ultimate goal is to "master" your emotions, not suppress them--there's a big difference. To master doesn't necessarily imply "control", but rather to develop a state of mind where such emotions flow and don't intrude. You're not supposed to give in to anger not by suppressing all your anger, which would be counterproductive, but by simply achieving a sense of inner awareness where the anger is just naturally flowing as part of yourself, in that it never existed to begin with.

I would suggest not that Tamaki is failing herself by giving into anger, but rather by allowing the anger to take is natural progression and riding the wave and reflecting, she is redirecting it and cultivating herself.

Or rather, if it were anyone but Tama, I'd suggest that. She's a bit too dopey for that