Imagine what would happen if on the last play of the Superbowl the superstar wide receiver, who just made a spectacular catch for the winning touchdown, goes up to the referee and tells him that the ball actually hit the ground and it was not a catch. How might society deal with this kind of honesty? — synthesis

Can you be a little more specific? How are you assuming the referee reacts? Because if the ref doesn't act on this information (and it is likely that he won't), there won't be a reaction from society at large. So I'll assume that the catch is then ruled incomplete. Furthermore I'll assume that we somehow hear or learn about this conversation.

We would largely regard that player's honesty as a bad play decision. Players are expected to fake things this way. It is not outside of the rules or outside of ethics, but a part of the game.

I don't think the behavior of athletes is any kind of evidence that morality has hit rock bottom. What you're describing is the hypocrisy written into all of human culture. Our very practice of ethics is always rife with such examples, and you will find them throughout human history. The pattern is simply this:

1. A law is set up to define what is allowed
2. Our intuitions sometimes conflict with that law
3. Some members of society take advantage of the law either by framing others or pushing their own behavior to the limit of what is de facto legal even when that is in conflict with our intuitions

If we imagine that the study of ethics amounts to the study of personal choices rather than institutions, this pattern will always reveal moral failings of individuals. However, this is not because the substantive ethical question really pertains to individual conduct, but because of where we have chosen to look. If we instead consider the way the institutions are constructed -- namely our laws and mechanism for enforcement -- we might find that there is no way to improve the outcome or indeed that outcomes have been steadily improving through legal and institutional reforms.

In the situation you described above, the institutional perspective looks rather different. The sport has very well written rules which allow referees to consistently enforce standards of fair play. Video assist, coach challenges, etc. are all set up with fair play in mind. It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to point out any single change that could be made to the rules or refereeing of American Gridiron Football to improve the game.

So how can these two perspectives be reconciled? Before proceeding, let me give another example:

A woman is feeling lonely and wants to find a guy to hook up with. But she doesn't feel comfortable, so she decides to lower her own inhibitions with alcohol. She goes to a bar, gets drunk and hooks up with a guy that night.

When viewed from the perspective of her individual consent, she is making a choice that leaves her unable to consent. Thus, her actions are offensive to the cause of women's liberation. She should be personally responsible and remain sober, so that she can positively consent to the sexual encounter. Otherwise, she is just fueling rape culture. Using this line of argumentation, it is possible to view her act as immoral.

However, when viewed from the perspective of social institutions, it is a triumph of feminism that a woman can feel safe enough in our society to actually behave this way. She is not deterred by fear that she will be shamed as a slut nor afraid of being sexually exploited.

Looking at these examples, the way to reconcile these perspectives is to realize that laws, social customs, standards of enforcement, etc. open up the space for us to act freely. Rather than this personal view of morality existing in a separate space from the institutional perspective, it is actually a product of that perspective, indeed one of the many means by which social rules are enforced.

In truth, there are always lines of demarcation in personal morality which define the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. These are not determined by or derived from first principles in philosophy. Instead, they come from our own culture, and in that sense are nothing more than the reflection of the rules governing that manner of action. That is why we expect athletes to try pretend they've caught the ball, or (as in a game of soccer) sell another player's foul against them. It is also why we also do not find it morally objectionable when people take actions which do contradict philosophical principles which we ourselves hold, such as the principle of consensual sex. It is because we see some actions as "normal" and therefore do not critically evaluate them.

Since the very basis of the reaction that someone who is otherwise following the rules is still acting in an immoral manner is nothing more than a moral intuition, it is impossible to separate our own implicit sense of what is normal from this reaction. It is, after all, an intuition and not an argument regarding a stated rule. Otherwise, the rule would be part of our explicit understanding, an moral intuition would not be necessary.

In professional sports, why is it acceptable for athletes to attempt to deceive, e.g., the baseball or football player has obviously not caught the ball (yet contends that he has) and instant replay shows that it wasn't even close, yet nobody calls them out for this behavior? — synthesis

Because it's not about sports, but about entertainment. Truth and honesty would spoil the entertainment.

Watch the film The Quiz Show for an illustration of this principle.


Sometimes, ideology is part of the mix as well. Sports are sometmes used to uphold the socially desired ideals of the successful individual, teamwork, the winning-is-everything mentality. The actual reality of the game is subservient to that.


And, of course, games are sometimes rigged. Betting on sports is a huge business, players and referees can be bribed or extorted.

Can you be a little more specific? How are you assuming the referee reacts? Because if the ref doesn't act on this information (and it is likely that he won't), there won't be a reaction from society at large. So I'll assume that the catch is then ruled incomplete. Furthermore I'll assume that we somehow hear or learn about this conversation.

We would largely regard that player's honesty as a bad play decision. Players are expected to fake things this way. It is not outside of the rules or outside of ethics, but a part of the game. — Garth

I am not assuming anything. I was just curious how this might play-out and what the reaction might be of all parties concerned...the player, the referee, his teammates, coaches, ownership, the media, and everybody else who would pile-on.

Seems to me that it's time for the entire country to go back to kindergarten and review some basic rules for carrying out a successful life.

Because it's not about sports, but about entertainment. Truth and honesty would spoil the entertainment. — baker

I get that and it's a great point, but it seems a bit in-your-face. Perhaps it's just that moral corruption is so deeply ingrained at this point that nobody really cares (similar to the political sphere where people expect the worst and that's exactly what they get).

I get that and it's a great point, but it seems a bit in-your-face. Perhaps it's just that moral corruption is so deeply ingrained at this point that nobody really cares (similar to the political sphere where people expect the worst and that's exactly what they get). — synthesis

There are also technological advancements that have changed some aspects of sports. For example, instant replay on the spot so that a referee can look it up and only then make a decision, is a relatively recent thing. In soccer, for example, many opposed the use of instant replay. We can guess why.

I've also heard from an amateur soccer player that faking fouls, outs etc. is standard practice, simply part of the game.

I am not assuming anything.

Seems to me that it's time for the entire country to go back to kindergarten and review some basic rules for carrying out a successful life. — synthesis

Seems like you're unaware of your own cognitive dissonance here...

Seems to me that it's time for the entire country to go back to kindergarten and review some basic rules for carrying out a successful life. — synthesis

Eh?
Most people learn by kindergarten that it's dog eat dog world.

@synthesis This is an interesting topic.

I was once, in my youth, a tournament-level tennis player. During my career I witnessed just how, in other players and in myself, the ambition to win a match can cloud your judgement: you start calling all close line calls your way, interpret uncertainty of the score in your own favor, even start actually SEEING, with your eyes, your opponents balls that fell on the line as though they were out, begin IMAGINING the score different from what it actually is. What could be the source of such partisanship and selfishness and corruption in ppl ordinarily fair minded?

I think ppl become this way when they believe that their self-worth depends on their success or failure in the contest. In aristocracies there were gentlemanly contests in athletics, but because the gentlemen who participated in them had a higher standard on which to base their worth, they tended to be fairer, even more conciliatory in their judgement. If they had an argument, it would more likely be that their opponent, not themselves, should receive the point or the victory.

In democracies, however, it is every man for himself, “dog-eat-dog” as Mr. baker describes it...

...I must mention however that in my career as a competitive athlete I did witness one or two examples of the opposite: players who were deferential, self-effacing and tended to give me, their opponent, the benefit of the doubt...I was beaten by both in close contests.

Seems like you're unaware of your own cognitive dissonance here... — Garth

Aren't we all.

Most people learn by kindergarten that it's dog eat dog world. — baker

Perhaps, but I think the average five-six year old is still interested in getting with the program.

Once I was chatting with a very bright gentleman who happened to teach sports ethics for several decades at a local university and I posed a similar question to him, that is, why doesn't anybody care about telling the truth in competitive sports (especially when so many young people are observing).

He looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, and said he had no idea and that it was truly a great travesty.

I know that in a couple of Asian countries, honor still counts in sports, e.g., Japanese baseball.

The competition between sportsmanship and winning is as entertaining as any other (artificial) dichotomy. As opposed to the OP, both are actually lionized in pro sports, though one loudly and the other wistfully.

@synthesis Funny (or sad) that a man who taught “sports ethics” for so many years had no answer to you basic question. I would question his credentials in the field.

Not familiar with Japanese baseball; how does honor still count there?

I guess he came to same conclusion as most everybody else, nobody cares about such things anymore, so my question to him was more about why he thought people developed this apathy.

I know in Japanese baseball it's more about the team than the individual as players are quite loyal to the cities and fans for whom they play. As well, the fans do not boo or harass the visiting team. They also have ties if either team is not ahead after 12 innings.

Apparently, winning isn't everything in Japan (although working certainly seems to be).

@synthesis How does calling a baseball game a tie after 12 innings reveal or promote honor?

Perhaps it might temper the "win at any cost attitude." Maybe not.

@synthesis I would say not, since a baseball game could be called a tie after the regular nine innings.

Are you familiar with tennis? If you are, why is a let-cord replayed after a serve, but counted as a winner (if the opposing player can’t get to it) after the point has begun? For in both instances the let-cord is due to chance and not to skill. Indeed, the winner of such a point characteristically throws up his hand, as though to say, “My apologies: it wasn’t by my skill I won this point but, rather, by Lady Luck”.

Jut so you know there is a movement on the Pro circuit to have let serves go (just like during a rally), though to be fair it is out of an interest to shorten matches.

@LuckyR To be sure there is a movement in all of sports to shorten the time that contests take...but that is a separate discussion.

But my question is what the rationale was in tennis’ origins to nullify a purely random event during the serve, but reward it after play had begun. There must have been SOME rationale (?)

@LuckyR I’ll tell you what I think it was...

During a rally many shots may be made and a lot of time taken up. If after all these shots one ends up being a let-cord winner, well then, to replay that point would eat up a lot of time, whereas, after a serve, which is just one stroke of the ball, not much time was wasted.

So I think you were on to it: even in its origins, the reason to accept let-cords as winners had to do with the length of matches!

In other words, chance is an equal factor in all sports...except on the last play...huh?