I get the feeling that some of us might have been forced to go to religious schools where the "preaching morality" approach was common (as it was at my religious high school). I think there's an important difference between "preaching morality" at people and teaching ethics. The research shows that moralizing (preaching morality) does NOT work. However, teaching people to think critically about their goals/habits and how their actions can lead to positive/negative consequences does work well. As an ethics and pre-law professor, I don't preach at anybody, but I do try to teach students how to think critically about ethics and the law so they can make informed, rational decisions about how to live well.

I think you’ve got great points. For my Masonic lodge, I did the same thing as you suggest, which is to invite participants to critically self-reflect on their actions and interactions. What I found was that at some point, reference needed to be made to virtue ethics or Kant as a reference point for ethical conduct and what makes someone ethical.

For BJJ, I guess if a code exists in a school, then inviting students to critically think about the virtues it espouses is a good idea. E.g. honesty and whether “brutal honesty”, as an example, is a good expression of the virtue of honesty. Or perhaps whether “courage” could be taken too far into recklessness and so on.

I guess my concern is more where students are not expecting to learn about this sort of thing that it could have the opposite effect that I intend. If before the sign up process I talk to them and say that as part of our lessons, we will also be discussing ethical conduct and I’ll be inviting everyone to think critically about their conduct, then yeah fair game as they have the chance early on to buy into that or not. It’s when there’s no expectation of that that a student might ask questions like “why are you teaching me this? I am here for BJJ”, and may wonder what qualifies me to talk about ethical conduct. I worry that they might think “well, I know I’m a good person. Will this guy get back to teaching me how to armbar someone?”

Part of my worry too is that while I have (informally) studied ethics, by opening the door to discussing ethical conduct, I worry that that could lead to others using their coaching time to discuss their perception of morality, or invite them to be life coaches.

Good points, Christopher. I think that bringing in some more rigorous contemporary ethics material is necessary to unpack the more traditional bushido philosophy. I tend to think about bushido as an intellectual tradition that is closer to virtue ethics than any kind of "code" (which is how Nitobe describes it).

I try to make sure that my ethics lessons directly pertain to self-defense (since I tend to teach that more often than BJJ for sport competition). For example, if I discuss compassion (jin 仁 in Japanese), I talk about why using a submission is preferable to strikes in self-defense because it allows us to be merciful, which has significant legal benefits as well. If I discuss politeness (reigi 礼儀), I do it in the context of "verbal judo" techniques for de-escalating fights (e.g., how to let the other guy save face so that he'll be willing to walk away). I try to make sure that there's always a practical benefit to each lesson that relates directly to self-defense.

Clean feet and enjoy rolling 🤙Oss

Duty may be a virtue, but loyalty is not.
Loyalty is the anti-virtue invoked to persuade people to deviate from the actual virtues of kindness, fairness, and honesty.
I do not want my students to be "loyal" to me.
I am the teacher, I do not need their loyalty.
I would like my students to honest, fair, kind, and when they can, brave.
But, teaching hand to hand combat or sports techniques does not always translate well to building moral character.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
Hopefully it does include Rules of Engagement training.
And appealing to "loyalty" is a tactic used by every cult, and is often common in brainwashing operations.

Right.
The Samurai, like the European knights, were often brutes, who terrorized the farming, serf, and peasant classes.
What is more, by the time the Samurai started writing their own folklore, about themselves, they were administrative bureaucrats.
Great for comic books, and movies.
But dysentery has caused more deaths in war than any other cause of death in war.
So, most of the Samurai, and European knights, in any kind of war campaign, who died, likely shat themselves to death.
And glorious deaths in battle, occurred, but were less common than death by diarrhea.
That's reality for you.

The lost samurai code: death by diarrhea.

If anyone is interested in warrior codes as a historical phenomenon, Shannon French has an interesting book on the subject: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9[...]nd-Edition. It's an interesting book overall, and I have used it for years in my Ethical Warfare class (a cross-listed philosophy and security studies class that also covers subjects like contemporary just war theory). I don't believe she covers gastrointestinal maladies, however (perhaps a suggestion for the third edition?). :)

Some Quotes by GM Helio Gracie can also be the foundation for BJJ Codes:

"Usually, a well-thought answer makes an aggressor think twice."

"A real Jiu-Jitsu fighter does not go around beating people down. Our defense is made to neutralize aggression."

"I believe that preparation and knowledge are the keys to succeeding in any situation."

You mean the massively homophobic sexist guy who liked to beat people up with a metal box? I think I'll look elsewhere for my moral guidance. :P