In his book “Philosophy of Sport,” Drew Hyland introduces a wide range of practical and theoretical issues that incorporate sociological, psychological, and philosophical themes. Hyland argues that, alongside politics, religion, music, and the arts, sport should be considered a legitimate subject of philosophical inquiry. The philosophy of sport, in particular, is a relatively new development within the realm of philosophy. Hyland explains that many great philosophers have discussed sport in their works (Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche), but that they usually treated sport as an example of a larger point or as a metaphor for a larger issue being addressed (xvi). It wasn’t until the 20th century that philosophers turned their attention directly to sport as a theme for philosophical investigation. Although the philosophy of sport covers a wide variety of topics, including the relationship between sport and society, mind and body in sport, and sport and self knowledge, this area of philosophy places the greatest emphasis on the ethics of sport. Hyland believes that the philosophy of sport must address the issue concerning the “overemphasis on winning” in sport, which elevates with the levels of competition. Unfortunately, competitive sports encourage participants to treat their opponents as “the enemy,” or someone they must dominate. Hyland explains that this type of activity creates alienation between both players and teams, an issue he considers the most significant in sport. Hyland also discusses the issue of drug use within sport, which he believes has a positive correlation with the level of competition.
Because I have participated in baseball throughout my life and on every level short of professional, it is the particular sport I plan to investigate in my term paper. An individual who watches or follows baseball will probably notice that players, coaches, and umpires follow certain rules or guidelines. For example, all players must use some type of protective helmet while at bat and all players on a team must wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style. These types of rules are provided by Major League Baseball and are considered the “written” rules of baseball. If an individual participates in baseball, however, he gains the opportunity to experience an entirely different set of rules. These separate rules are considered the “unwritten” rules of baseball because they are not in the rulebook and are primarily learned through playing the game. The collection of unwritten rules, also known as the baseball “code,” is divided into two categories: the first set is designed to promote sportsmanship (these rules explain when it is appropriate to run, swing, etc.) and the second set is designed to enforce the first set (these rules explain when it is appropriate to throw at a batter, provide a hard tag, etc.). My term paper will investigate the morality of the unwritten rules of baseball using specific virtues provided in Aristotle’s ethics, including courage, fortitude, prudence, justice, and temperance. In order to determine whether or not the activities in baseball are ethical, it is necessary to determine the morality of its players based on varying situations. Because the values of society are reflected in sport, I hope to gain knowledge of these values during my investigation into the ethics of the baseball code.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThomas, I like where you’re going with this and it should make for an interesting topic. Having said that, you might want to consider the “players” involved in “sport” (in this case, baseball) through the lens of moral agency. The mere title alone suggest that there in fact exist an “unwritten” set of rules that comprise the “code” of baseball. This “code” could very easily be interpreted along the lines of “moral law” and the duty moral agents have towards one another in fulfilling the moral law. Also, I like how you bring up the mutual understanding between player that permit “violations” (i.e. hard slide) of the “moral law” in instances where the player must use his/her discretion. This is a fascinating case, honestly. You’re right in bringing our attention to this highly relevant example that demands moral examination. How is it that morality can be adjusted when in a state of “play”. Have you read anything on the philosophical notion of “play” yet? -- Would advise doing so.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I like the differences between play and a game like we discussed in class. I believe that it applies very well to this paper. One could also make an argument with pragmatism in order to justify the unwritten rules of baseball. One can argue that without these changing unwritten rules the whole system will collapse thus destroying the game. The rules tend to change through time in terms of context things like tobacco use and personal lifestyles have been incorporated into the unwritten rules of baseball as communication has increased thus increasing their effects on impressionable children. While being an alcoholic may have been fine in the past now a days the unwritten rules have changed.
ReplyDelete