Why might one argue that it’s an uphill battle trying to convince athletes to be positive role-models?
Some data shows that normal ethics are suspended on the field, and that this suspension extends to off-the-field as well. Bredmeier and Shields argued that ‘game reasoning’ — a different standard from normal ethical
reasoning – takes place in sport, and that ‘game reasoning’ seems to extend to off-field contexts.
Researchers argue that this suspension of ethics occurs because a) in sporting contexts, ‘moral authority’ is placed in the hands of officials, and b) the morality of sport is lax to begin with. Reid says: “it’s hard to imagine sports without deception, fouls, and incessant attempts to get away with something.”
On the topic of role models, what exactly were Barkley and Malone arguing about?
Barkley says he shouldn’t be a role modle just because he can dunk a basketball
Malone arues he isn’t a role modle because of that, but because he’s a public figure who’s influential
What is the ‘athletes are ethically obligated to be positive role models’ argument?
Premise 1: Prominent athletes, in virtue of their celebrity and prominence, have a special ability through their actions and deeds to influence others.
Premise 2: If one has a special ability to influence others positively, one ought to do so.
Conclusion: Therefore, prominent athletes ought to act in ways that have a positive influence on others
Klein thinks that both premises of the ‘athletes are ethically obligated to be positive role models’ argument are false (or in any case, unjustified). Describe one of his reasons for thinking so. (You can focuson either of the premises that Klein attacks.)
Premise 1: Prominent athletes, in virtue of their celebrity and prominence, have a special ability through their actions and deeds to influence others.
Argument: yes, sometimes people who follow
troubled athletes are themselves troubled, but the following of the athlete is the effect of the troubled fan’s nature, not the cause of it.
Premise 2: If one has a special ability to influence others positively, one ought to do so.
Argument: because Klein favors a virtue ethics approach to right conduct, he thinks that we ought to encourage people to be good people – people of virtuous character. And that sort of approach doesn’t fit with encouraging people to be role models per se (even though if somebody is a good person, he might just happen to end up being a role model.)
The question of whether a league has the right to punish and athlete for their bad off-field behavior can be broken down into two further questions. Identify and describe those two questions.
- does a team/leauge have the right to hold an athlete accountable for things the athlete does off the field?
- what right does a coorperation have to micromanage life, and where does it stop, where is the line drawn? - If they should be punished, what atandard of evidence should be employed by the team/leauge to decide that they in fact did the thing?
- Civil courts require simply more likelihood of guilt than innocent to find the person liable. What should the standard by the ‘courts’ of the NFL and NHL be and why?
The question of what to do, as a fan, if an athlete behaves badly, can be broken down into two further questions. Identify and describe those two questions.
- are you as a fan ethically obligated to enure your money doen’t go to that athlete that did wrong?
- is there something unethical about support of any kind (watching the game, cheering) if the athletes invoved are bad people?
Who is Kaepernick, and what is he most famous for?
Colin Kaepernick, former 49ers quarterback, started taking a knee during the national anthem
in 2O16 to protest police brutality against African Americans.
Why does Klein think that it’s bad for athletes to be political activists? What’s his argument?
Klein says that it’s irresponsible for athletes to be political activists, because being a political activist causes harm.
Premise 1: Political activism is a kind of political participation.
Premise 2: Political participation tends to be harmful to one’s well-being and relationship with others and society in general.
Conclusion: Thus, ‘the political activism of prominent athletes will tend to have a negative influence instead of a positive one’ and thus Athletes shouldn’t participate politically.
Klein asks us to keep 3 things in mind before we rush to attack him. Identify and describe any two of those things.
- execptions can exist (and thats fine), Klein is just saying in general
- The activists might be praiseworthy in their intentions, but motivation is one thing and consequences are quite another.
- None of what Klein has argued for thus far shows that sport cannot be a great way to change the world politically. Klein’s point is simply that political activism isn’t the way to change the world.
- ex. white fans didn’t accept black athletes in MLB, but they did in NBA because some of their favourite players we’re black
What’s an objection to Klein’s view that political participation is bad?
- There are significant historical examples in which political activism worked (the civil rights movement and suffrage come to mind).
- Klein points out that political activism causes people to become polarized. That’s fine because maybe they should be. Polarization might be the final step, and a necessary step, before change.
