Re-reading the Hunger Games, it strikes me as somewhat unrealistic that absolutely everyone in the Capitol thinks that people killing each other for sport is a great thing, to the point where the practice continued uninterrupted for 75 years. When I think of modern blood sports, it seems that there is always a group of people who oppose them and customs change.
Did anyone oppose the circus in Rome? Are there any contemporary writings that survive of someone denouncing gladiatorial combat?
More broadly, is the attitude that it is wrong to kill people (or animals) for entertainment a relatively recent invention in western culture?
Seneca spoke out against the circus, both in the way the men were treated and how the crowds reacted to their deaths (translation from here) in a moral epistle on how one should avoid crowds.
I chanced to stop in at a midday show, expecting fun, wit, and some relaxation, when men's eyes take respite from the slaughter of their fellow men. The preceding combats were merciful by comparison; now all trifling is put aside and it is pure murder. The men have no protective covering. Their entire bodies are exposed to the blows, and no blow is ever struck in vain. . . . In the morning men are thrown to the lions and the bears, at noon they are thrown to their spectators. The spectators call for the slayer to be thrown to those who in turn will slay him, and they detain the victor for another butchering. The outcome for the combatants is death; the fight is waged with sword and fire. This goes on while the arena is free. "But one of them was a highway robber, he killed a man!" Because he killed he deserved to suffer this punishment, granted. . . . "Kill him! Lash him! Burn him! Why does he meet the sword so timidly? Why doesn't he kill boldly? Why doesn't he die game? Whip him to meet his wounds! Let them trade blow for blow, chests bare and within reach!" And when the show stops for intermission, "Let's have men killed meanwhile! Let's not have nothing going on!"
Original text is from the Moral Epistles, Epistle VII.
Edit: weight should be wit
Great replies everyone.
The modern trend of creating 'movements' and a collective opposing voice over anything and everything, is not something we should project onto history. It is very easy for people (especially in the west) today to kick up a fuss or create groups of collective disgust over any matter which pops into the mind. However, context is everything and we too often look at history in modern terms whilst denying our similarities.
When we view a society we have to understand the cultural conditioning at play. This goes for our societies today as well as in history. If we look around western culture now, we will observe that our lust for blood hasn't actually ceased - it only altered. We like entertainment such as movies, gaming and I would even suggest reality television. The same desires are at play but what differentiates us today with our entertainment and ancient hands on, blood thirsty entertainment, is purely circumstantial. We don't need to watch people fight to the death because technology allows us to experience it vividly without real deaths occurring. It seems that apples don't fall far from the tree, in regards to humanity.
The Hunger Games touches on very real primal urges within human beings which only takes certain circumstances to manifest. Today in our age humans still cannot resist the temptation to make a public spectacle of those 'deserving' and the condoning of public humiliation is very apparent even now, one only needs to approve of the reasoning. Where there is room for justification in a person's mind then there is always the option of approving these displays of what some would call, human cruelty.
Remember that slavery was accepted in this period too. Yet not all slaves had abusive masters and context needs to be taken into consideration again, not all slavery is the same through history even if rightly condemned by our modern moral views. When humans are narrowed down to various levels of importance and the lower levels being a mere possession, why would gladiatorial games stir emotions strong enough to make a collective public opposition? No doubt there will have been individuals who dissented from the social norms or even remained indifferent, but we view a society on what is widely accepted and embraced on a cultural level. Look at it this way, sports fans fill huge arenas, watch from home and even engage in the play, it is a huge part of our culture. Yet, not everyone watches, plays or is remotely interested in sports. I would imagine it to be similar in the ancient world.
Rather than the need to actively oppose such traditions, I would suggest many people potentially being indifferent. What we mutter amongst ourselves in private or even in the pub, are not the things we get remembered for. Something being accepted by society is not the same as every citizen eagerly embracing it.
Some people just were apathetic. I recall reading that Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus would occasionally sponsor games or races for the standard political reasons/appeasing the mob, but were themselves so bored by the spectacles that they would just do paperwork and occasionally stand up when needed for some ceremonial purpose.