Going Online

Basics

1. Adapting.  I plan on running this class so you have the feeling we still have a cohesive class.  You're a great bunch of students and I want you to be able to continue "seeing" each other in class, talking to each other, sharing your sports experience, etc. On the other hand, requirements are going to have to be adapted to our new circumstances to some degree.  
2. Class meetings.  We will meet at our regular time--MWF 1:00 Central Time--using Zoom (see below).
3. Attendance. I will continue taking attendance, but will approach absences in a different way than before.  Please communicate with me if you must miss class. I will also communicate with you if you are not attending. I will regard a good attendance record as a "plus" when I calculate final grades.  
4. Syllabus.  Make sure you use the online version of the syllabus, since I have made quite a few changes.
5. Book. Soon we'll be reading Good Sport, by Thomas Murray. If you didn't bring your copy, that's fine.  The library has kindly offered to get the e-book for us. It should be available soon.
6. RRs. The deadline is still 10:00 am (central time). A few of the RRs have been cancelled.
7. Presentations.  See below.
8. Final exam. The final will be done at Canvas.  
9. Suggestion box. Please feel free to give me feedback about the policies I'm outlining in this post. If you think something should be done differently, I'll either make the change you suggest or explain why I've adopted the policy.

How to Join Zoom Classes

1. Getting in. The Zoom url will be the same for every class meeting.  It's available at Canvas. (Only at Canvas because apparently "zoombombing" is a thing. We'll move to password protection if we need to.)
2. The app.  You'll need to download it before you join any meetings.  Add it to all your devices.  
3. Trouble? Clicking on the url should get you in, but if you have trouble, use the alternatives in the full invitation at Canvas.
4. Recording. I'll be recording class meetings for various reasons. I can make the recordings available upon request.

Zoom Features

1. Muting, unmuting. When you join the Zoom meeting, you'll initially be unmuted.  It will probably be noisy so I may mute everyone.
2. Raising your hand.  On a laptop, tap "participants" and you'll see the option. On a phone, tap "more" and you'll find it.  On my end the icon indicating your hand is raised is very small, so bear with me.  Just raise your real hand if necessary!
3. Chatting. You can contribute a written comment using the chat function.
4. Sharing.  You can share what's on your screen using "Share." For example, you can share your Google Slides that way (when doing presentations).

Using Zoom for Meetings

1. Presentation meetings.  We'll have some "break out" presentation meetings during class time. You can also use Zoom to set up your own meetings. In fact, you could use our Zoom url if you wanted to.  Those non-class meetings are not recorded.
2. Office hours. Also by Zoom. At the usual time (1-1:30) and by appointment.  I'm also always available by email.

Presentations

1. The show must go on.  Since you can get oral communication credit for taking this course, we must have oral presentations.  Besides, the six topics are great!  It would be a shame to skip all that good material.
2. Dates. We will have just one presentation per class instead of two, so some of the dates have been changed.  See to the right/below.
   
3. Interviews? It's going to be harder to interview people, but do what you can. You may have to rely on your other resources, such as videos, to learn about the ethical issues that come up in the sport.
4. Oral aspect.  Because of the circumstances, you won't be graded on the stylistic aspects of your oral presentation. Just walk us through your slides.

Zooming Presentations

1. Slides. First, collaboratively create a Google Slides Presentation (or use other software). Each person adds the slides they want to present.
2. Share screen. During the Zoom session, one of the presenters uses "share" so we all see the presentation.  
3. Talking about the slides. Each presenter discusses their slides for about 4-5 minutes.
4. Discussion. Afterwards, we all discuss the presentation.

Other Options for Presentations

1. Add narration to your slides.  You can't do that in Google Slides, but you can do that with Powerpoint and with other programs.
2. Put presentation at blog. Everyone would then watch it on their own, prior to a Zoom discussion.
3. Less stressful? Technically this option is harder, but it may be preferable to some groups to avoid the stress of doing a live presentation. Bear in mind that you won't be graded on oral style. 

Outlawing Sports/CTE Background

Question this week: Is football so dangerous that it should be outlawed?

CTE background

Joe Ward et al, “110 NFL Brains” ;  Collecting the brains (TED talk)
Michael Powell,  “This Helmet Will save Football. Actually Probably Not”




Ethical background

Which categories of behavior is a government justified in restricting?

Some useful distinctions

• Deliberate, accidental
• Causing, creating risk
• Non-consensual, consensual
• Other-harming, self-harming

(A) Other-harming behavior

1. Committing murder
2. Going to party while awaiting results after being tested for coronavirus (Dartmouth case)
3. Leaving lock down area after quarantine orders (northern Italy)
4. Participating in a duel

Wikipedia

(B) Self-harming behavior

1. Participating in a duel
2. Riding motorcycle without helmet
3. Driving without seatbelts
4. Drinking huge sodas

(C) Offensive but not harmful (we won't discuss)

(D) Immoral but not harmful (we won't discuss)

Positions

Libertarianism: liberty of adults may only be limited in (A) cases (other-harming), not in (B) cases (self-harming).

• John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) 

Paternalism:  liberty may be limited in both (A) cases and (B) cases.  

• Sarah Conly, Against Autonomy ( 2013)

Next time

1. Sarah Conly chapter
• Her argument for Paternalism
• Two forms of Paternalism: coercive vs. liberal.
• Why she favors coercive
2. Does football fall in class (A) or (B)?
3. In principle, should football be outlawed?
4. What about other dangerous sports? Free solo climbing, boxing, etc.

Climbing Ethics

HEIDI HOWKINS LOCKWOOD
PHILOSOPHER
ATTEMPTED K2 IN 1998 AND 2000

BECK WEATHERS
DALLAS PATHOLOGIST
CLIMBED EVEREST IN 1996







ALISON HARGREAVES
FIRST WOMAN TO SOLO-CLIMB EVEREST (1995)
DIED 3 MONTHS LATER ON K2

Free Solo Climbing and the Value of Self-Sufficiency

Free Solo
128-133

Is it a sport? 

1. On Suits's view--(a) pre-lusory goal, (b) limits on the means, (c) obstacles set up in the way of the goal, (d) obstacles accepted because of lusory attitude....+4 more
2. On Huizinga's play account

If it's a sport, what is its value?

1. Hurka: achievement
2. Tasioulas: play

Is "free solo" climbing an especially great achievement?  Ebert and Robertson: Yes!

1. (S) "Other things being equal, the more self-sufficiently a mountaineering objective is achieved, the better the achievement" (p. 94)
2. Another way of saying (S): If two mountaineering expeditions are otherwise just alike, the more self-sufficient of the two is the greater achievement
3. "Self-sufficiency is a good making or value enhancing feature of mountaineering" (p. 97). 

Why is self-sufficiency value enhancing? Ebert and Robertson:

1. more committing, more adventurous
2. especially constitutive of mountaineering

APPLICATIONS

1. Alex Honnold's free solo climb of El Capitan (most self-sufficient--how self-sufficient was it?)
2. Conrad Anker & Co's first ascent of Meru
3. Woody Hartman's guided ascent of Everest (least self-sufficient)

What does (S) say about which achievement is best?

1. Honnold free solo climbs El Capitan
2. Honnold climbs El Capitan with equipment and other climbers

1. Conrad Anker climbs Meru alone, with equipment
2. Conrad Anker climbs Meru in a team of three, with equipment 

OBJECTIONS 

Objection #1 Always good?  How can self-sufficiency always be good, considering that someone can be so self-sufficient that they're foolhardy?





Jean-Christophe Lafaille



Objection #2 How to compare when other things aren't equal?

Objection #3  Isn't there value in being part of a team?

Objection #4 Doesn't valuing self-sufficiency devalue the achievements of people who simply can't climb without guides, such as blind climber Erik Weihenmayer?

Objection #5 It would be absurd to say that every climber should climb without equipment and guides.

Objection #6 Then what are you saying?

"mountaineers should at least aspire to climb self-sufficiently" (p. 104)

"climb as self-sufficiently as you can" (p. 104) 

Climbing

Our first two classes on climbing will be about the value of climbing.  To think about these issues, we need to differentiate different kinds of climbing. We'll discuss which of the climbers are "summiteers" and which are "mountaineers"--see the article by Pam Sailors for this distinction.

(1) Unassisted mountain climbing (e.g. Meru in the Himalayas)

• no established route--this may be a first ascent
• no guides--each climber has to have advanced technical skills
• climbers carry their own gear and equipment
• often high-altitude climbers don't use oxygen
• Meru (the movie) is available online--it's free if you have Amazon Prime. Movie was made by the same people who made the movie Free Solo (Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi).

• watch end of Meru (1:19-1:25)
• women in climbing--our author for Monday is a woman who attempted K2 several times

(2) Assisted mountain climbing (e.g. Everest)

• there is an established route, ropes, anchors, perhaps ladders, etc.
• guides assist the climbers
• porters and Sherpas carry almost all gear and equipment (issues about Sherpas here)
• climbers use oxygen and possibly dexamethasone to cope with high altitude
• issues about  Everest explored by ethicist Peter Singer here

• More about Woody Hartman's climb is here.

(3) Free solo climbing

• climbing alone, without ropes or other equipment
• please watch Free Solo (complete) by Friday

Can Cheaters Win?

Wikipedia: "A spitball is an illegal baseball pitch in which the ball has been altered by the application of a foreign substance such as saliva or petroleum jelly."

Strategic Fouling in Basketball

INTERNALISM VS. EXTERNALISM

Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding

Strategic fouling in basketball

• What is it? Hack-a-Shaq
• NBA changes rules (watch first video)

CHEATING

Watch first 3 minutes:

• Astros didn't lose their title in the 2017 World Series, but were penalized and apologized.

Kant and Mill

Announcement: no class on Friday Feb 21.  There's an optional RR.


Scenarios

1. Walking in cricket--ethical or stupid?

2. Trouncing and boasting--problematic or just fine?

Ancient ethics (Plato, Aristotle)

• An athlete or sports organization inspired by ancient ethics will regard virtue as having paramount importance
• But what are the virtues...for us, today?

Utilitarianism--John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

• To figure out what is right and wrong, must consider consequences of action or policy
• The right action is the one that maximizes total good for all affected (i.e. the balance of happiness over misery)
• The right policy is the one that maximizes total good for all affected
• What would a Utilitarian cricket player do in scenario 1?
• What would a Utilitarian soccer player do in scenario 2? To trounce or not to trounce, to boast or not to boast?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1824)

• Ethics is not virtue-base and not consequence based
• It's based on one "super-rule," the Categorical Imperative"
• Categorical means "It applies no matter what, in every circumstances, whatever your goals are"

The Categorical Imperative (two formulations)

Formulation #1. Your code of conduct must always be such that you would and could want everyone to adopt the same code of conduct. 

• What is my code of conduct now?
• Would/could I want everyone to adopt the same code of conduct? 

Formulation #2. Never treat a person only as a means, but always as an end

• Don't "use" people and don't let others "use" you.
• Treat people with respect, as autonomous beings with basic dignity.

From the super-rule to other rules

1. Never lie
2. Never steal
3. Never break your promises

The Kantian athlete

• The Kantian cricket player
• The Kantian soccer player
• Could you be a Kantian professional wrestler or boxer?  

7. Combat sports--especially problematic?

Plato and Aristotle

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.

1. Walking in cricket--stupid or virtuous?

Here are some other scenarios we may want to discuss.

2. Trouncing and boasting--problematic or not?

Ancient Ethics (background)

Ancient Greek Boxer

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (5th and 4th century BC, Athens)
Stoics (4th century BC to 100 AD, Rome)

• Focus of ancient ethics is "the good life" (eudaimonia, in Greek).  
• The core of a good life, for them all, is virtue. The virtues are positive character traits like being courageous 
• The Olympics began in ancient Greece. They consisted of track and field events, wrestling, boxing, chariot races, but no team sports. 
• All of these philosophers see physical education as an important part of education.  

Ancient ethics and the virtue argument for walking

1. Virtue is our ultimate goal, the only valuable thing, the only solid basis for happiness. 
2. Walking in the cricket scenario is virtuous, even if it means losing. 
THEREFORE
3. Batsman should admit he's out and walk. 

• All the ancient philosophers accept premise 1.  
• But do they accept premise 2?  
• And would they draw the conclusion, 3?

Plato (428-348 BC)

Would Plato say it's virtuous for the batsman to walk?
Plato's view of the soul.  The soul has three parts--

1. Rational (reasons, makes good judgments)
2. Spirited (wants to win, seeks honor)
3. Appetitive (wants food, sex)

The Soul

Spirit and sports

• not covered by the philosophers who focus on achievement (Hurka), play (Huizinga and Tasioulas), and skill (Papineau)

The virtuous soul

• It's for the rational part of the soul to govern the other two parts.  
• Will a virtuous batsman be truthful, even if it means losing?  
• McGowan says it's not clear

The plot thickens: individual virtue vs. social justice

Plato thinks there are three kinds of people.  In a just society, the rational class rules, but the other two classes are needed too.

A just society

Now imagine a just cricket game 

A just cricket game

Bottom line

1. It may be virtuous of the batsman to walk
2. Plato may have said that overall it's better for athletes to be spirited and for umpires to impose reason.

Is this a good compromise?  

Aristotle (384-382 BC)

Aristotle's account of virtue 
Virtue is a mean between extremes.

The virtue of truthfulness

• Has to do with how you talk about your own strengthens and weaknesses
• Suppose you are a great soccer player and you know it.
• Boasting is a vice, false modesty is a vice, truthfulness is a virtue.
• This pertains to the Megan Rapinoe scenario....

• ... but not to the cricket scenario

• Is there another virtue that pertains to the batsman?

Bottom line

• An athlete inspired by ancient ethics will think of virtue as more important than anything else
• A sports organization inspired by ancient ethics will be run with virtue and justice as having primary importance
• But what are the virtues? 

Nationalism and Sports

We probably won't have time to watch, but these are interesting lectures about nationalism and sports:

PART I
PART II

The speaker is Oren Starn, an anthropologist at Duke University.

Value of Sport

What makes sport/games valuable (or not)?

1. Achievement (Hurka)
2. Play (Tasioulas)
3. Teamwork (debate: Boxill vs. Ryall)
4. Developing character (but Idaho study suggests otherwise)

Idaho study (Sharon Stoll and colleagues and students, 30 years of research)

Center for Ethics

HBVCI Survey

Results
Powerpoint 

• slides 6-10
• more on gender: slides 24-25

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
• But first--value of sport for fans 

Background for "The Ethics of Walking in Cricket"

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.

The Value of Sport: Teamwork

Jan Boxill--in praise of teamwork
Article
Her example: rowing





Emily Ryall--teamwork is neutral (sometimes good, sometimes bad)
Article
Her example: domestiques in road racing

Play and the Value of Games/Sports

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

* Disclaimer: discussion doesn't imply approval!

The Value of Sport

Some basic value distinctions

• apply to wealth
• apply to injury

What is the value of games/sport?

• Hurka's view (read p. 217)
• Suits's definition (reduced to 3 elements)
• Because of the obstacles, sports are difficult 
• Difficulty adds to life
• Sports and the 5 distinctions--what is he saying?

But why do sports, as difficult activities, add to life?

#1 The achievement argument

1.      Sports are difficult activities

2.    Doing difficult things is an achievement.

3.    Achievement adds to personal well-being.  
     THEREFORE,

4.    Sports add to personal well-being.

Why does achievement add to personal well-being?

#2 The Experience Machine argument

1.   Life is bad in the experience machine.

2. So specific life goods must be missing in the experience machine.

3.   One thing missing is “rational connection to reality”

4.   Achievement in sports gives you connection to reality. 
     THEREFORE,

5.   Achievement in sports is a life good.

#3 Which sports add the most to life?

• High difficulty vs. low difficulty
• Rock, paper, scissors
• Surfing in winter in Iceland

#4  Which sports add most to life?

• Compare types of knowledge
• Jeopardy knowledge

• Medical knowledge--hierarchical integration 

• What's the sports equivalent of Jeopardy knowledge? Example?
• What's the sports equivalent of medical knowledge? Example?
• What does he say about weight lifting and boxing?

Endnotes

1. Here's what an ESPN panel of experts said about the difficulty of various sports.
2. The Aaron Hernandez documentary is on Netflix.  
3. Under an Arctic Sky is the documentary about skiing in Iceland.