Fair Play

The Ethics of Sport

Robert L. Simon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429972201
• Edition: 4
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Soziologie

This book is primarily concerned with some of the most important kinds of philosophical issues that arise in sport which are ethical or moral ones. It focuses on the nature of principles and values that should apply to sport.

1

Introduction

THE ETHICS OF SPORT

Robert Simon reports that the following incident not only stimulated his interest in the philosophy of sport but also suggests the kind of issues philosophical inquiry in sport raises:

I would like to think this book began on an unfortunately not atypical cold and rainy late October day in upstate New York. I had been discussing some of my generally unsuccessful efforts in local golf tournaments with colleagues in the philosophy department and let drop what I thought was an innocuous remark to the effect that although winning isn’t everything, it sure beats losing. Much to my surprise my colleagues objected vehemently, asserting that winning means nothing. In their view the recreational aspects of sport, such as having fun and trying to improve—not defeating an opponent—are all that should matter. I soon found myself backed into a corner by this usually unthreatening but now fully aroused assortment of philosophers. Fortunately for me, another colleague entered the office just at the right moment. Struck by the vehemence of the argument, although he had no idea what it was about, he looked at my opponents and remarked, “You folks sure are trying to win this argument.”¹

This incident illustrates two important aspects of a philosophical examination of sports. First, issues arise in sports that are not simply empirical questions of psychology, sociology, or some other discipline. Empirical surveys can tell us whether people think winning is important, but they cannot tell us whether that is what people ought to think or whether winning really ought to be regarded as a primary goal of athletics. Second, the incident illustrated that logic could be applied to issues in the philosophy of sport. Thus, at least on the surface it appeared my colleagues were in the logically embarrassing position of trying hard to win an argument to the effect that winning is unimportant. Of course, they might reply that their goal was not winning but the pursuit of truth, but athletes might similarly argue that winning is important because it is a sign of achieving their true goal, excellence.

We will return to the issue of whether winning is important in Chapter 2. For now let us consider further what philosophical inquiry might contribute to our understanding of sport.

Ethical Issues in Sport

Sports play a major, if sometimes unappreciated, role in the lives of Americans. Most of us are exposed to them as children. As a result of our childhood experiences, many of us become participants and retain some affiliation with sports for life, even if only as spectators.² Athletes and fans devote a great deal of time and effort to sports at all levels, so much so that their involvement is surely one of their most personally significant activities. The situation is not unique to the United States. Intense interest in sports is virtually a global phenomenon. Whether it is ice hockey in Canada, Scandinavia, or Russia; baseball in Latin America and Japan; or soccer in Europe, South America, and Africa, sports play a major role worldwide. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Native Americans all valued sport. Indeed, participation in sports and the related activity of play is characteristic of most, if not all, human societies.

Although there is a tendency to regard sports as trivial, it is not clear that such a view is justified. Those critical of sport or bored by athletic competition must admit sport plays a significant role in our lives, even if they believe that dominance is misguided or even harmful. At the very least it is surely worth discovering what it is about sport that calls forth a favorable response among so many people from so many different cultures.

Reflection upon sport raises issues that go beyond the bounds of sport itself. For example, reflection on the value of competition in athletics and the emphasis on winning in much of organized sports may shed light on the ethics of competition in other areas, such as the marketplace. Inquiry into the nature of fair play in sport can also help our understanding of justice in a wider social setting. Indeed, because many of our basic values, such as fairness and honesty, are often absorbed through involvement in athletic competition, inquiry into values in sport may have important general implications in addition to the intrinsic interest it invokes from participants and fans.

Sport raises many kinds of philosophical issues. For example, what is a sport? Football, baseball, and soccer clearly are sports. But some have doubts about golf. What about chess and auto racing? How are sports related to games? Is participation in sport always a form of play? Questions such as these raise issues that go well beyond looking up words in a dictionary. To settle them we will need to rely on a theory of what makes something a game, a sport, or an instance of play. Dictionary definitions often presuppose such theories. But the theories a definition presupposes may be unclear, may leave open how borderline cases are to be thought of, or may just be wrong. For example, one dictionary account of games classifies them as competitive activities. But must all games be competitive? “Playing house” arguably is a game, but is it competitive? What about playing catch?

Some of the most important kinds of philosophical issues that arise in sport are ethical or moral ones; these are the kinds of issues about which this book will be primarily concerned. Some moral issues in sport concern specific actions, often of athletes. For example, the strategic acts referred to as “diving” in soccer and “flopping” in basketball have caused considerable concern for many involved with these sports. These acts call for a player to attempt to deceive officials and others by falling to the ground after an opponent has nearly or negligibly made contact with her in hopes of drawing a foul call and receiving an undeserved compensatory advantage. In soccer, dives are often executed within the opposing team’s penalty area so the diver’s team will be awarded a penalty kick, a free shot at the goal with only the goalie, who cannot move directionally until the ball is contacted, between her and the goal. In basketball, defenders tend to flop when they believe they can draw a charging foul that will result in a change of possession and nullify the results of a shot in progress. Players on offense will flop on field goal attempts in order to secure an additional free throw if they make the shot or two free throws if they miss it.

To some the above tactics may seem fair enough because both are conventional strategic moves players on either side can employ. But in each of these situations the flopper or diver is using a questionable form of deception to neutralize an opponent’s fairly earned advantage and/or gain a high-percentage scoring opportunity. Many in soccer and basketball sporting communities have spoken out against these acts, contending they are not consistent with the spirit of the respective sports and their rules. Their arguments have influenced governing bodies to institute rules and regulations against flopping and diving and to define sanctions for those who continue to use them. Still, questions remain regarding whether such rules and penalties are warranted due to the use of a particular kind of deception. Is the type of deception used in flopping and diving unethical? What makes it different from the legal, creative forms of deception we applaud in sport?

Other ethical issues in sport involve the assessment of rules or policies—for example, many sports organizations’ prohibition of competitive athletes’ use of performance-enhancing drugs. What justifies this prohibition? Is it because performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids often have harmful side effects? But why shouldn’t athletes, especially competent adult athletes, be free to take risks with their bodies? After all, many of us would reject the kind of paternalism that constantly interferes with the pursuit of our goals whenever risky behavior is involved. Think of the dangers inherent in a typical American diet, which contains a high proportion of unhealthy fats and sugars.

Or should performance-enhancing drugs be prohibited because they provide unfair advantages to some of the competitors? Are the advantages any different from those conferred by the legal use of technologically advanced equipment? Moreover, would the advantages still be unfair if all competitors had access to the drug? Defenders of baseball slugger Barry Bonds, who is alleged to have achieved his home run records in part with the assistance of performance-enhancing drugs, claim that some opposing pitchers undoubtedly also used performance enhancers, thus equalizing the competition.

Questions of marketing, sports administration, and the formulation of rules also involve moral issues, although the moral character of the questions raised may not always be obvious. For example, consider whether a rule change ought to be instituted that might make a sport more attractive to fans at the professional or college levels yet diminish the skill or strategy needed to play the game. Some would argue that the designated-hitter rule in American League baseball, which allows teams to replace their usually weak-hitting pitcher with a designated hitter in the batting order, is such a case. The rule may make the game more exciting to the casual fan, who values an explosive offense; however, it may also remove various subtleties from the game, such as the decision about when to remove the pitcher from the game for a pinch hitter or the value of the sacrifice bunt, which weak-hitting pitchers might be capable of executing.

The use of the shootout tiebreaker to force outcomes in National Hockey League (NHL) regular-season games presents a second example of how formal structural changes can have moral effects. Shootouts are essentially one-on-one skills competitions between individual shooters and goalkeepers. Although such tiebreakers may please fans and bring further excitement to NHL ice hockey, they do not require players and teams to utilize other primary offensive and defensive skills that make ice hockey the unique sport it is. The NHL does not use shootouts to decide the outcomes of playoff games, presumably because the league recognizes that the flaws of the practice make it inferior to “sudden death” overtimes, in which ties are broken in actual play. Given the acknowledged flaws of the shootout, why doesn’t the NHL accept the ties that naturally occur in regulation time as valid results of regular-season contests, as it once did, rather than padding the standings’ point totals of teams who thrive in crowd-pleasing shootouts? Wouldn’t a decision to accept ties lead to a more honest assessment of excellence over a full season and a more accurate and fair ranking of playoff contenders for the postseason?

Although the previous two examples are not as obvious moral issues as some of the other examples cited, they do have moral or, at least, evaluative components. They raise questions about the purposes or goals of sport, what social functions it ought to serve, and whether sport has an integrity that ought to be preserved. Similar issues may arise when we consider when technological innovations ought to be permitted in sport and when they ought to be prohibited for making a sport too easy.

At a more abstract level other ethical issues concern the values central to competitive sport itself. Is competition in sport ethically permissible or even desirable, or does it create a kind of selfishness, perhaps an analog of a narrow form of nationalism that says, “My team, right or wrong”? Does the singleminded pursuit of winning, which is apparently central to competition in sport, help promote violent behavior in fans? Does it teach competitors to regard opponents as mere obstacles to be overcome and not as fellow human beings? Is it related to the anger many participants’ parents show in youth sports, which culminated in 2001 when an enraged parent killed a hockey coach? What kind of competition in sport can be defended morally, and how great an emphasis on winning is too much?

Questions such as these raise basic issues about the kinds of moral values involved in sport. They are not only about what people think about sport or about what values they hold; rather, these questions are about what people ought to think. They require the identification of defensible ethical standards and their application to sport. Critical inquiry into the philosophy of sport consists in formulating and rationally evaluating such standards as well as testing them by seeing how they apply to concrete issues in sport and athletics.

Sport, Philosophy, and Moral Values

Just what does philosophy have to contribute to reflection about sport and moral values? It is evident even to a casual observer of our society that sport in the United States is undergoing intense moral scrutiny. How can philosophy contribute to this endeavor?

Philosophy of Sport

Misconceptions about the nature of philosophy are widespread. According to one story, a philosopher on a domestic flight was asked by his seatmate what he did for a living. He replied, perhaps foolishly, “I’m a philosopher,” a statement that is one of the greatest conversation stoppers known to the human race. The seatmate, apparently stupefied by the reply, was silent for several minutes. Finally he turned to the philosopher and remarked, “Oh, and what are some of your sayings?”³

The image of the philosopher as the author of wise sayings can perhaps be forgiven, for the word “philosophy” has its roots in the Greek expression meaning “love of wisdom.” But wisdom is not necessarily encapsulated in brief sayings that we might memorize before breakfast. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates provides a different model of philosophic inquiry.

Socrates, who lived in the fifth century BC, did not leave a body of written works behind him; however, we know a great deal about his life and thought primarily through the works of his most influential pupil, Plato. As a young man, Socrates, seeking a mentor from whom to learn, set out to find the wisest man in Greece. According to the story he decided to ask a religious figure, the oracle at Delphi, the identity of the man he was seeking. Much to Socrates’s surprise, the oracle informed him that he, Socrates, was the wisest man in Greece. “How can that be?” Socrates must have wondered; after all, he was searching for a wise teacher precisely because he considered himself ignorant.

However, looking at the oracle’s answer in light of Plato’s presentation of Socrates, we can discern what the oracle meant. In the early Platonic dialogues, such as the Euthyphro, Socrates questioned important figures of the day about the nature of piety or the essence of knowledge. Those questioned purported to be experts in the subject under investigation, but Socrates’s logical analysis discredited their claim to expertise. These experts not only failed in what they claimed to know but also seemed to have accepted views they had never exposed to critical examination.

Perhaps in calling Socrates the wisest man in Greece the oracle was suggesting that Socrates alone was willing to expose beliefs and principles to critical examination. He did not claim to know what he did not know, but he was willing to learn. He was also not willing to take popular opinion for granted but was prepared to question it.

This Socratic model suggests that the role of philosophy is to examine our beliefs, clarify the principles on which they rest, and subject them to critical examination. For example, in science the role of philosophy is not to compete in formulating and testing empirical hypotheses in biology, chemistry, and physics; rather, philosophers might try to understand in what sense science provides objective knowledge and then examine claims that all knowledge must be scientific. If we adopt such a view of philosophy, the task of the philosophy of sport would be to clarify, systematize, and evaluate the principles that we believe should govern the world of sport. This task might involve a conceptual analysis of such terms as “sport” and “game,” an inquiry into the nature of excellence in sport, an ethical evaluation of such principles as “winning should be the only concern of the serious athlete,” and an application of ethical analysis to concrete issues, such as disagreement over whether athletes should be permitted to take performance-enhancing drugs.

This book is concerned primarily with ethically evaluating principles that many people associate with sport and employing that analysis to examine specific issues. Its major focus is the nature of principles and values that should apply to sport. Thus, its concern is predominantly normative rather than descriptive—assessing what ought to be rather than describing what is. Perhaps only a few people think of sports as activities that raise serious moral issues. They see sport either as a mere instrument for gaining fame and fortune or as play, something relatively trivial that we do for fun and recreation. However, as the headlines of our daily newspapers show all too frequently, serious moral issues do arise in sports.

But can moral issues be critically examined? Is rational argument even possible in ethics? Aren’t moral views just matters of opinion? Can moral principles be rationally evaluated and defended, or are they mere expressions of personal feelings that are not even the sorts of things that can be rationally evaluated or examined?

Ethics and Moral Reasoning

If reasoned ethical discourse is impossible, rational inquiry into ethical issues in sport is impossible. Although we cannot consider all possible reasons for skepticism about whether rationally justifiable moral positions can be developed, one widely...