The big picture Externalism: Ethical standards for sport come from outside of sport. The same ethics that applies to other domains (everyday life, law, medicine, business) also applies to sport.
Internalism: Ethical standards for sport come from inside of sport, at least to a significant degree. The ethics that applies to other domains may not apply to sport.
Assuming Externalism is correct, what are the ethical standards that should be applied to sport (and everything else)? History of ethics gives many answers. McGowan's humorous overview focuses on walking in cricket.
Article Survey you took (4 fake questions + 12 real questions, vs. 21 on original survey)
How to score (first read disclaimers below)
you are not a research subject
we are not assuming the survey accurately tests moral character
the survey is a basis for discussion
What are the ethical assumptions behind the study? The paragraphs below are from this webpage (scroll down).
The HBVCI is based on three of these universal codes of conduct: honesty, responsibility, and justice. Using deontic theory, definitions for honesty, responsibility, and justice were developed.
For the HBVCI:
Honesty is defined as the condition or capacity of being trustworthy or truthful. Honesty, in this sense, is a basic character that society espouses - an ideal of moral development...to be honest in thought, word, or deed. Honesty, therefore, is the code of conduct which takes into consideration lying, cheating, and stealing, and refers to the honest person as one who follows the rules and laws.
Responsibility is defined as accounting for one's actions in the past, present, and future. We are responsible for our acts, if, and only if, we did the act or caused it to occur. A responsible person is morally accountable and capable or rational conduct.
Justice is defined as an equity or fairness for treating peers or competitors equally. Justice is the quality of being righteous or of dealing justly with others. It is based in the integrity of doing the right or fair act.
Is this the right sort of ethics for sport?
We will be looking at that in the next unit of this class
This reading, by Anthony McGowan, introduces many approaches to ethics by asking what they would say about the ethics of walking in cricket. But what is walking in cricket? Walking in cricket The scenario McGowan discusses is this: you're the batsman (or woman) and the bowler bowls the ball. It just slightly hits the edge of your bat and gets caught by the wicket keeper (pause at 1:22 to picture this). You're out and therefore (maybe) you should walk off the pitch. But nobody knows it but you! The umpire didn't see it. Do you have to admit you're out and walk off the pitch? Other cases of "self-refereeing" The Idaho survey presented similar scenarios.
A soccer player broke the rules by tapping the ball with his hand, but the referee didn't see. Should he report himself?
A volleyball player just barely taps a ball that then falls out of bounds, but the referee didn't see. Should she report herself?
Is there a duty to self-referee?
This is the question raised in all of the scenarios. The McGowan article looks at what major figures in the history of ethics might say.
Games that aren't valuable on the achievement/difficulty account (Hurka) 1. Games of pure chance
"The presence of luck seems to be a valuable feature of many games despite having nothing to do with striving and achievement, and everything to do with the thrill of surrendering to fate and delighting in good fortune." (Tasioulas p. 241)
2. Stupid games
name and examples are from "Games and the art of agency" by C. Thi Nguyen
in a stupid game, you strive to win, but the fun is when you fail
examples: Telephone (Whisper Down the Alley), Bag on Your Head, Twister, drinking games*, maybe charades
