Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bravo A-Rod

Rate this topic


Dikaiosyne

Recommended Posts

I would like to say Bravo Alex Rodrigiuez for opting out of his record-setting contract and seeking an even bigger one. That really shows amazing courage, to see an even bigger profit for using his amazing baseball talents, and not worrying about people talking about excessive greed or lack of loyalty.

But this excellent example of capitialism led me to another question. It is pretty certain that A-rod deserves his money, and I applaud him for not settling, even with the biggest contract ever, but what about the players that don't live up to their paychecks. Is it immoral of them to accept them? I am thinking of Jose Lima, the guy who set records for worst ERA in both the American and National Leagues, and Mo Vaughn who signed a huge contract and was injured for most of it. While these players had a contract, and the teams where legally required to play, was it immoral of them to accept money for poor performance. Of course, most people in a free society would be fired for at least Lima's level of incompetance, but on a larger level, it is immoral to accept contractually guaranteed money for any poor performance? And if not immoral, does accepting the money damage one's self respect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those players earned their big contracts in the years before they signed them. Lima wasn't being paid to win 20 games again; he was being paid not to engage in off-field behavior that could pose a reasonable risk to his health. He lived up to his side of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any rational management would willingly pay for past performance, except in terms of promised bonuses and other such things. These teams expected a continuation of previous performance, and thus where signed for that money to continue that level of performance. My question is, is it immoral to take all of that money when that performance level is dimishing, or nonexistant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any rational management would willingly pay for past performance, except in terms of promised bonuses and other such things.

Of course they will, that's all they have to go by. There is a reason they don't just hand the ball to any random stranger on the street and offer him a 10 million dollar contract.

These teams expected a continuation of previous performance, and thus where signed for that money to continue that level of performance.

Sure, but there is no guarantee. If there were a guarantee, the game wouldn't be a game, and all outcomes would be known in advance. It's not easy to perform at your best all of the time, and injuries and the play of other players have a big factor in how well you will do. It's all part of the game. And, to be sure, there are times when a player plays well above his level of pay and has a phenomenal year.

My question is, is it immoral to take all of that money when that performance level is dimishing, or nonexistant?

No, it's not. What's important is that you give a reasonable effort. If someone doesn’t give a reasonable effort to live up to their contract, that would be immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any rational management would willingly pay for past performance, except in terms of promised bonuses and other such things. These teams expected a continuation of previous performance, and thus where signed for that money to continue that level of performance. My question is, is it immoral to take all of that money when that performance level is dimishing, or nonexistant?

BogAl just gave the answer: no. It's fine if you're not playing up to your market value as long as you are playing the best you can at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, is it immoral to [sign a huge contract] when that performance level is dimishing, or nonexistant?

Most of the other posters have answered adequately to some degree here. For completeness, I will add a little more.

I think the underlying principle to your question is, should one accept a contractual agreement that is above one's perceived (in his judgment) market value? In simpler economics terms, is it immoral to sell a product for a price above what you perceive its market value to be? Was Gil Meche immoral for signing that five-year, $55 million dollar contract with the Kansas City Royals?

I would say it is moral to do so as long as you have engaged in honest negotiation. For the purposes of a baseball player's contract, intentionally withholding any relevant injuries or your general health would be dishonest.

Other forum members have also addressed the issue that it would be immoral to sign a contract knowing that you will not put forth the effort that is reasonably expected of you as the contractee. In addition to on-field effort, this includes off-field effort as is probably detailed in their contracts. This would include regular training, not missing practice due to a hangover, not gaining too much weight in the off-season (e.g., as Sidney Ponson was accused of), not engaging in prohibited off-field activity and not hurting your wrist while playing guitar hero when you are supposed to pitch during the world series (e.g., Joel Zumaya).

I see no reason to automatically condemn signing a contract above one's market value as immoral without evidence of dishonesty or failure to honor the agreement. If anything, it would be immoral to sign a contract below your market value in many circumstances.

The only other context where it might be immoral to sign a contract above your market value is if doing so would infuriate the fans so much, where their constant harassment would make your life absolutely miserable. Nobody wants to live in infamy as Hideki Irabu did while playing as a New York Yankee.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall athletes tend to be underpaid early in their careers. Not all of them, of course, and a fair number are overpaid. So if you signed a contract early on for less than you were worth at that time, would it be immoral to sign one for more than your worth at present?

I think it's not immoral. Look at it as a charge for services rendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say Bravo Alex Rodrigiuez for opting out of his record-setting contract and seeking an even bigger one. That really shows amazing courage, to see an even bigger profit for using his amazing baseball talents, and not worrying about people talking about excessive greed or lack of loyalty.

I think looking for the biggest contract you can is the norm in sports. Alex Rodriguez is not exactly special in that respect.

But this excellent example of capitialism led me to another question. It is pretty certain that A-rod deserves his money, and I applaud him for not settling, even with the biggest contract ever, but what about the players that don't live up to their paychecks. Is it immoral of them to accept them? I am thinking of Jose Lima, the guy who set records for worst ERA in both the American and National Leagues, and Mo Vaughn who signed a huge contract and was injured for most of it. While these players had a contract, and the teams where legally required to play, was it immoral of them to accept money for poor performance. Of course, most people in a free society would be fired for at least Lima's level of incompetance, but on a larger level, it is immoral to accept contractually guaranteed money for any poor performance? And if not immoral, does accepting the money damage one's self respect?

It takes two to establish a market value -- buyer and seller. The athletes do not force the management to give them contracts. If the management overestimated an athlete's value, why should the athlete be responsible? Here is an analogical situation: I sold ten shares of stocks for $10 per share, and then the company misses their projected quarter revenue and the price drops to $5 per share. Do you think that I need to hand back the $5? Hell no!

An athlete is like a stock in many ways. When you buy a share of stock, you're not just buying its current value. You are buying the company's reputation, their past performances, as well as their projected growth. Likewise with an athlete. Your past performance are a matter of public record, and your bodily health is monitored and examined by doctors from the management. All the records are laid out under the sun. Once the deal is made, it is final. It has nothing to do with morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about Irabu, "Infirate the fans too much?" that seems like something based on feeling more than reason. And for the Yankees it didn't turn out half bad, trading him for Ted Lilly and Jake Westbrook. They turned into decent starting pitchers, but they also dealt away for limited long-term gain, so it seems to be a wash.

But back to the topic

I think the point of my question is this, it is moral, immoral, or nonmoral to make an unfair deal.

1. The intention/knowledge of both sides matter, Full intention (trading value for value) full knowledge (each part of the trade is indeed a value), seems to be the ideal of a "moral deal" where as a trading value for non-value in either case seems to be immoral, that is either tricking a person into trading value for non-value by deceiving them or lacking knowledge that the non-value is indeed a non-value.

Where it gets tricky is where the knowledge is incomplete on each side. It seems that any idea involving future performance seems to be necessarally a case of incomplete knowledge, for exact knowledge of the future is impossible. So it is up to each side to make their best guess.

My contention is that, once the knowledge of the future has been obtained, it can be judged not only to be a good deal or a bad deal, but indeed a good deal or an evil deal. And with two sides engaging in a contintual relationship, it should be possible to even the books so to speak. Stock purchases and sellings are almost always impersonal, a one-time deal, to evening the books would be next to impossible. But with a continuing relationship in between say a player and a team manager, such an evening seems to become reasonable. And there are advanced metrics, such as Baseball Prospectus' MORP, to determine exactly how much value a player contributed to his team. Given it seems to be just and moral to receive exactly one contributes to any endeavor, accepting or paying too much money seems to become an immoral act. So Gil Meche should probably not be paid $11 million dollars, but Miguel Cabrera also shouldn't be paid $300,000.

Thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts on this?

As long as there is no fraud, any deal reached by mutual free will consent and agreement is a good deal. It is up to the buying party to obtain the information he needs to come to a decision. If he cannot obtain it, then he should walk away. The selling party is not obliged to provide any more information than is required to keep the deal fraud free. In short, one should not buy a pig in a poke. Let the buyer beware, Caveat Emptor.

Any other approach is similar to what the Church taught in the Middle Ages, the Doctrine of the Just Price.

Contrary to what the Church Fathers taught, the only Just Price is the price reached by supply and demand in a relationship untainted by fraud and coercion.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw A-Rod. Not one championship ring under that overhyped wimp. The Yankees will go and buy yet another whore like A-Rod and have yet another record breaker, cause that's what the Yankees do. Maybe he can actually lead them to the world series and make it through.

Really, I hope he goes to the Sox so they don't win another series for the next hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you signed a contract early on for less than you were worth at that time, would it be immoral to sign one for more than your worth at present?

This line of reasoning seems dangerous. If you were swindled by a con artist, does that mean that you are justified in cheating someone else?

One thing about Irabu, "Infirate the fans too much?" that seems like something based on feeling more than reason. And for the Yankees it didn't turn out half bad, trading him for Ted Lilly and Jake Westbrook. They turned into decent starting pitchers, but they also dealt away for limited long-term gain, so it seems to be a wash.

I believe you misunderstood the intent of my comment. The key issue is not that the fans are infuriated. Instead, it is that accepting a high visibility position that you know you are unworthy of could make you miserable. In the context of baseball, there would be sports pundits describing you as a horrible investment, the media might hound you about being overpaid and you might have dread every single home game knowing the resentment concerning your acquisition. The pressure professional athletes face from the media is very real. I do not see why it would be moral to put yourself in such a situation given the taxing ordeal you would be putting yourself through.

Please do not misconstrue my argument to suggest that I am advocating avoiding any high pressure or controversial position.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This line of reasoning seems dangerous. If you were swindled by a con artist, does that mean that you are justified in cheating someone else?

You are entitled to swindle that particular con artist :)

Now, a pro athlete will sign a contract based on the performance the team expects of him. If an athlete exceeds the expectations, clearly he was underpaid without any malice or even any intent to be underpaid, right? He can ask for a bonus in addition to his contract, he can renegotiate his contract, or he can ask for a bigger contract once the current one expires. That's what I meant.

Naturally this goes for the team that hired him to begin with. If he changes teams he can't expect the new team to pay for what he did for the old team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuing with the Irabu example, your explaination makes it clear that for all of the parties involved, the managament, the media, even the player himself, it is the sense of injustice that drives their misery. So the basis of egoist arguement against accepting Irabu's position would be that the lack of performance to payment, and indeed performing badly pursuing a worthly goal (winning a baseball game) would be morally apprehensible, and thus cause it to be at the very least an uncomfortable position to be in. Thus having a "Just Payment" (for lack of a better phrase) with Irabu's performance directly relating to his compenstation or simply being fired because it was not a profitable situation for either party (as Irabu basically was, banished to Montreal) could make the situation at least inline with morality and reality.

And I could care less about what the ancient Church Fathers have to say about a "Just Price." I am more interested in dealing with Ayn Rand's moral system. Roughly, since Man has the right to sustain his life by his own effort, and man should own the means to sustain that life (our mind for most of us, but athletic ability for professional baseball players) or else he is a slave, then it follows that just how much value that effort creates should be the extent that he has the means to sustain that life. Since in a capitalistic society money and value are nearly synonymous, then when value can be measured, by the means of a price system (that is for tickets and TV contracts etc), it stands to reason that the money that player produced belongs to him, and the money he didn't produce doesn't. That is not to say that the players are the only people generating value, of course the league and the owners provide the means for the players to make their living in the first place, but to take more than your "fair share" (which by the very virtue of being fair is not the same for everybody) seems immoral. Indeed it seems that the player with the exorbitant is stealing from the people who did create the value, whether it be the new rookie sensation, or management itself.

I know this type of arguement is an old war horse for statists and has been trotted out for at least 2 centuries. My contention is that it is not the government's or strong man's job to even the books, but the personal moral responsibly of individuals, both employer and employee. If people where forced into giving up what is at least nominally their own money, the act would cease to be moral. But if individuals could recongize both the goodness in others and there own imperfections, this system is viable, if idealistic.

Now, considering all men are not paragons of virtue, the best solution would be for there to be no long-term contracts and have only limited 1 year contracts for all players in baseball. That would bring the system much closer to an equilibrium, both morally and economically. Considering that year to year performance is generally consistant, this would allow for consistantly great players to get their "fair share" and the Jose Limas and Hideki Irabus of the world there rightful moral spot, kicked to the curb. That is, the system would allow for the drastic changes in player value that can occur from year to year. To look in very recent history such a system definitely worked for Roger Clemens, getting him very very good compensation year to year. Of course this would require a whole restructuring of both the farm system system, the draft system, and the free agent system, but it would be the more moral system.

Back to the original point, A-rod has a very good chance of living up to a huge, long term contract, because of his physical gifts, but that is not so for most players, especially pitchers. So if this system was ever put into place, I would ironically expect an increase means to preserve pitcher health, demanded by pitchers for their long term earnings power. Also I would expect an even more competitive game on the field, given already players performances have a positive spike in contract years, that positive spike would be evidenced with players in all years.

Again Thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are entitled to swindle that particular con artist :(

Still no. The government has (and rightfully, in a just society, should have) a monopoly on retaliatory force, including legal recourse. It is not as if we live in a kleptocracy!

Now, a pro athlete will sign a contract based on the performance the team expects of him. If an athlete exceeds the expectations, clearly he was underpaid without any malice or even any intent to be underpaid, right?

It depends what you mean by underpaid. From the perspective of ex post, sure he was underpaid. However, from the perspective of ex ante, the athlete might not have been underpaid. There is an enormous number of promising young athletes compared to the number who blossom into all-star caliber everyday starters. General managers price unproven athletes according to the likelihood that the player might become a star along with considerations of supply and demand for comparable position players.

In terms of moral judgments, the ex ante perspective is much better, as it accurately reflects the context of knowledge at the time of the decision.

He can ask for a bonus in addition to his contract, he can renegotiate his contract, or he can ask for a bigger contract once the current one expires. That's what I meant.

Naturally this goes for the team that hired him to begin with. If he changes teams he can't expect the new team to pay for what he did for the old team.

I agree. Being underpaid by his previous employer creates no obligation whatsoever on his future employer. Once the player has proven himself to be of major league caliber, it is his moral prerogative to secure a suitably high contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still no. The government has (and rightfully, in a just society, should have) a monopoly on retaliatory force, including legal recourse. It is not as if we live in a kleptocracy!

You seem to have missed the smiley.

There is an enormous number of promising young athletes compared to the number who blossom into all-star caliber everyday starters.

Yes, and any NFL fan can name a dozen promising QBs who turned out to be little better than average, and who were overpaid in their first years.

That doesn't change the fact that some unproven youngsters get to perform astonishing feats of athletics, which generate additional earnings for the team. Such athletes are underpaid in their first years. In their latter years their own team will ahve to offer them a higher salary or risk loosing such players (and they loose them sometimes anyway).

Such things, BTW, are easier to see in some positions than in others. The public at large, and even serious fans, often don't know what NFL linemen are doing, or even who they are. But a back-up running back who winds up with 1,600 yards per season is obviously more talented than anyone expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My contention is that, once the knowledge of the future has been obtained, it can be judged not only to be a good deal or a bad deal, but indeed a good deal or an evil deal. And with two sides engaging in a contintual relationship, it should be possible to even the books so to speak. Stock purchases and sellings are almost always impersonal, a one-time deal, to evening the books would be next to impossible. But with a continuing relationship in between say a player and a team manager, such an evening seems to become reasonable. And there are advanced metrics, such as Baseball Prospectus' MORP, to determine exactly how much value a player contributed to his team. Given it seems to be just and moral to receive exactly one contributes to any endeavor, accepting or paying too much money seems to become an immoral act.

Barring fraud, what you are essentially saying is that in a business deal, each party is morally obligated to compensate for the mistakes in assessment that the other party made. And my question is, why should they?

Frankly I do not even see how morality comes into play in a business deal. There is no such thing as an objective or divine value that ought to be paid for a good or a service. The value is determined by the two sides making the deal, and once that deal is made, that's it. All relevant assessments should be determined prior to the agreement. As such, making good or bad business deals has nothing to do with morality, REGARDLESS of whether it is "impersonal" or a one-time deal.

Another scenario is this: what if a player becomes injured and simply cannot play? Obviously his contribution drops to zero. So should he then return all the money to management? Of course not -- not unless it says so explicitly in the contract he signed. The whole point of the contract is that since no one can predict the future, you agree in the present what the terms are going to be based on currently available information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have missed the smiley.

I assumed that the emoticon meant that your response was funny, not funny and sarcastic. Okay, I am glad we are in agreement.

Frankly I do not even see how morality comes into play in a business deal. There is no such thing as an objective or divine value that ought to be paid for a good or a service. The value is determined by the two sides making the deal, and once that deal is made, that's it. All relevant assessments should be determined prior to the agreement. As such, making good or bad business deals has nothing to do with morality, REGARDLESS of whether it is "impersonal" or a one-time deal.

I remember in the Michael Vick thread you clearly indicated that you are against casting moral judgments unless if there is an initiation of force. This is in stark contrast to the Objectivist view on moral judgment, which requires moral judgment on any principle that will impact your life.

So how does this apply to signing free agents? One cannot really make judgments on the quantitative value of a contract. For example, you cannot say, it is immoral for this free agent to sign a contract for $7 million a year but it would have been moral for him to sign for $8 million a year. However, moral judgment comes into play on the qualitative value of contracts. As we both agree, you can (and should) cast moral judgment on a contract that was constructed on a false premise (i.e., at least one party committed fraud or intentionally withheld vital information). In my understanding, another such application would be if one party puts himself in a situation where he would be miserable. That is, he would be harming his life as opposed to advancing it. In such circumstances, moral judgment is not only permissible, it is necessary.

Similar arguments can be extended to business deals in general.

So as long as engaging in business transactions may result in the advancement or detraction of your life, they have EVERYTHING to do with morality.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember in the Michael Vick thread you clearly indicated that you are against casting moral judgments unless if there is an initiation of force. This is in stark contrast to the Objectivist view on moral judgment, which requires moral judgment on any principle that will impact your life.

Well, no. As I recall my position was that abusing animals cannot in and of itself be immoral. However I do remember one of the arguments being that cruelties to animals can damage one's psyche, and is hence immoral. I am somewhat neutral towards that position since I know that it will probably damage me personally, but I don't see how that would necessarily be the case for all people.

As we both agree, you can (and should) cast moral judgment on a contract that was constructed on a false premise (i.e., at least one party committed fraud or intentionally withheld vital information). In my understanding, another such application would be if one party puts himself in a situation where he would be miserable. That is, he would be harming his life as opposed to advancing it. In such circumstances, moral judgment is not only permissible, it is necessary.

I assume this refers to your previous post of the professional athlete being damaged psychologically by the media. However, as with the dog fighting case, I fail to see how this would necessarily apply to ALL athletes. Yes, it is true that if you are the type of (non-rational) person who bases your self-worth on the opinion of others, that it would in fact be immoral for you to intentionally put yourself into a situation where you are berated by critics. However it is just as likely that the athlete does not care at all what about the critics and values the money over the public opinion. Either way the athlete is morally responsible to himself and not to the management after the contract is signed, regardless of his performance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no. As I recall my position was that abusing animals cannot in and of itself be immoral.

Here you say "How people choose to entertain themselves is really morally irrelevant unless it is violating someone else's rights."

By this, I assume that you do not just mean entertainment but really taking any action. If this statement of yours is limited to entertainment or is no longer a position of yours, feel free to state so.

I am somewhat neutral towards that position since I know that it will probably damage me personally, but I don't see how [cruelty to animals for direct entertainment] would necessarily be the case for all people.

I assume this refers to your previous post of the professional athlete being damaged psychologically by the media. However, as with the dog fighting case, I fail to see how this would necessarily apply to ALL athletes.

Both of these statements appear to be very Subjectivist. That is, broad principles that apply to one individual for living an emotionally healthy life might not apply to another. The burden of proof is on you to provide a context for why a rational person would advance their life by doing either of the above, without dropping the context of my statements.

Yes, it is true that if you are the type of (non-rational) person who bases your self-worth on the opinion of others, that it would in fact be immoral for you to intentionally put yourself into a situation where you are berated by critics. However it is just as likely that the athlete does not care at all what about the critics and values the money over the public opinion. Either way the athlete is morally responsible to himself and not to the management after the contract is signed, regardless of his performance.

This is a digression from the context that I have provided. Your comments also insinuates that I am advocating basing one's self-worth on the evaluations of others. This is both false and very inappropriate. You can either raise a civil objection to what I offered for discussion or you can expect me to stop responding to you. I am not interested in a flame war.

The context I am addressing is when a position is offered that the applicant knows that he will not meet the expectations of the employer, possibly even resulting in a miserable failure. I think it would be immoral to accept such a position.

Some examples, in addition to the baseball one:

  • Accepting a management position for a department that you are grossly underqualified to run.
  • Agreeing to teach a class where you are significantly lacking in knowledge of the material.
  • Planning to perform at a concert that is billed significantly above your musical talent.

Is it moral to do any of the above? Do you think it depends on the person?

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you say "How people choose to entertain themselves is really morally irrelevant unless it is violating someone else's rights."

By this, I assume that you do not just mean entertainment but really taking any action. If this statement of yours is limited to entertainment or is no longer a position of yours, feel free to state so.

When I said entertainment, I thought it fairly obvious that I meant entertainment. But by the end of that thread though I do acknowledge that any entertainment that intentionally damages oneself is irrational, and thereby immoral. I was merely unconvinced that dog fighting is necessarily psychologically damaging.

Both of these statements appear to be very Subjectivist. That is, broad principles that apply to one individual for living an emotionally healthy life might not apply to another. The burden of proof is on you to provide a context for why a rational person would advance their life by doing either of the above, without dropping the context of my statements.

That is akin to claiming that if some people are allergic to peanuts, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it isn't the case for everyone else. If we are talking principles, then please state first why it must be the case the media pressure will necessarily damage an athlete. Which principle(s) are you referring to that infers this?

And if these statements appear subjective, it is because there is really no way for me to gauge psychological damage in the minds of others. Perhaps you somehow can? Otherwise if we're just talking observations, it would appear that there are scores of professional athletes that under-perform after signing big contracts, and yet is perfectly able to weather the media criticism while laughing all the way to the bank. Just turn on ESPN or pick up a Sports Illustrated if you want to see some examples. Personally I have seen many ball players who have stated emphatically on interviews that it does not matter to them what the media thinks. Perhaps they are lying or unaware, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is in fact on YOU since you were the one that made the claim in the first place.

Here you say "How people choose to entertain themselves is really morally irrelevant unless it is violating someone else's rights."

By this, I assume that you do not just mean entertainment but really taking any action. If this statement of yours is limited to entertainment or is no longer a position of yours, feel free to state so.

When I said entertainment, I thought it fairly obvious that I meant entertainment. But by the end of that thread though I do acknowledge that any entertainment that intentionally damages oneself is irrational, and thereby immoral. I was merely unconvinced that dog fighting is necessarily psychologically damaging.

Both of these statements appear to be very Subjectivist. That is, broad principles that apply to one individual for living an emotionally healthy life might not apply to another. The burden of proof is on you to provide a context for why a rational person would advance their life by doing either of the above, without dropping the context of my statements.

That is akin to claiming that if some people are allergic to peanuts, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it isn't the case for everyone else. If we are talking principles, then please state first why it must be the case the media pressure will necessarily damage an athlete. Which principle(s) are you referring to that infers this?

And if these statements appear subjective, it is because there is really no way for me to gauge psychological damage in the minds of others. Perhaps you somehow can? Otherwise if we're just talking observations, it would appear that there are scores of professional athletes that under-perform after signing big contracts, and yet is perfectly able to weather the media criticism while laughing all the way to the bank. Just turn on ESPN or pick up a Sports Illustrated if you want to see some examples. Personally I have seen many ball players who have stated emphatically on interviews that it does not matter to them what the media thinks. Perhaps they are lying or unaware, but it seems to me that the burden of proof is in fact on YOU since you were the one that made the claim in the first place.

This is a digression from the context that I have provided. Your comments also insinuates that I am advocating basing one's self-worth on the evaluations of others. This is both false and very inappropriate. You can either raise a civil objection to what I offered for discussion or you can expect me to stop responding to you. I am not interested in a flame war.

The context I am addressing is when a position is offered that the applicant knows that he will not meet the expectations of the employer, possibly even resulting in a miserable failure. I think it would be immoral to accept such a position.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. It was not entirely clear what your position was (at least to me) since in post 12 it almost seemed like you were saying that the psychological damage is coming from the media. If you are talking about damage from knowingly accepting a position for which you are unworthy, then public opinion is really irrelevant. Perhaps you just meant that it would be a constant reminder that exacerbates your feelings and not as the cause of the problem. That is where the confusion lies. And no, I am not interested in a flame war either.

Now as to your actual position. Personally I think that in any business negotiation, I think the moral thing to do as the seller is to always try for the highest price you can get for your wares. The moral responsibility lies with the buyer in determining whether you are worthy. That is, provided that you did not put a gun to his head or defraud him. If I threw paint on a canvas then posted it on eBay, it really does not matter to me what I think the item is worth. Likewise if in a job interview I laid out my credentials honestly and was hired, then regardless of my actual performance I am only morally obligated to do the best I can. The only problem

There is one situation however that is somewhat of a gray area. A few years back when Vince Carter was playing in for NBA's Toronto Raptors, he demanded the organization to trade him. Upon the team's refusal, he proceeded to tank his games -- played no defense, jacked up bad shots, etc. He even admitted publicly to doing so after he got traded to the New Jersey Nets. Now, this is a gray area because his contract only required that he play. If he had faked an injury (a common practice for disgruntled athletes), it would have been clearly immoral. But there is nothing in his agreement with the management that required him to score X amount of points or carry the team to the playoffs. So in essence he has fulfilled the explicit terms of his contract, although perhaps failing the implicit expectations due an all-star caliber contract. I think the only way you can evaluate this sort of situation is to analyze whether the player was in fact acting in his personal best interest in each individual case (and for the record, I think Carter was, albeit by straddling the line of morality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one situation however that is somewhat of a gray area. A few years back when Vince Carter was playing in for NBA's Toronto Raptors, he demanded the organization to trade him. Upon the team's refusal, he proceeded to tank his games -- played no defense, jacked up bad shots, etc. He even admitted publicly to doing so after he got traded to the New Jersey Nets. Now, this is a gray area because his contract only required that he play. If he had faked an injury (a common practice for disgruntled athletes), it would have been clearly immoral. But there is nothing in his agreement with the management that required him to score X amount of points or carry the team to the playoffs. So in essence he has fulfilled the explicit terms of his contract, although perhaps failing the implicit expectations due an all-star caliber contract. I think the only way you can evaluate this sort of situation is to analyze whether the player was in fact acting in his personal best interest in each individual case (and for the record, I think Carter was, albeit by straddling the line of morality).

This brings up a good point, Vince Carter basicallly went on strike because he felt that the organization wasn't doing enough on its end to be competitive, instead just relying on "Air Canada" to sell tickets. Because this broke more of an unspoken rule, that both the players and the management try to win basketball games, than one described in his contract, he broke the unspoken rule in his contract to play to the best of his ability. Honestly this seems more like poetic justice than anything else. The organization stopped trying to achieve on the basketball court, so he replied in kind. Playing a self-sacrificial best for losers seems like something an Objectivist shouldn't condone, and that is exactly what the Raptors where asking of Vince Carter. He literally choose NOT to play their game, instead he wanted to quit and find employment with a basketball team that did try to win, and because of player movement rules in the NBA and his own contract, the only way to do that is for his team to trade him. So Bravo to Vince Carter too, acting selfishly for his own moral betterment.

Of course he was cooked in the national (or I suppose international) media for acting selfishly, because A. They believe that all games should be a fair contest in-between two opponents trying to win (a very good moral judgement) and Vince Carter was publicly undermining that, and B. There is a bias against "acting selfishly" on the Basketball court, that translates to the "Super-Mores" of the game. This has been covered in other threads, but I believe that it was said best as "Acting toward the defeat of your enemy is a very selfish and self-fufilling action, so passing to the open man so he gets a 80% chance to score, instead of your 20% chance to score is one of the most selfish things you can do. In that sense, Steve Nash, lauded as an "unselfish point guard" is probably the most selfish player in the NBA. To complete your quote, in team sports at least sometimes the strength of wolf is the pack.

That is why I get so much enjoyment from professional sports in general, there is just so much right about it, giving your all in competition against the best in the world that, even if sometimes the Comentators ramble on the virtues of the sacrifice bunt (Wrong on so many levels.), it a beacon to all that love the human spirit.

Edited by Dikaiosyne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say Bravo Alex Rodrigiuez for opting out of his record-setting contract and seeking an even bigger one. That really shows amazing courage, to see an even bigger profit for using his amazing baseball talents, and not worrying about people talking about excessive greed or lack of loyalty.

But this excellent example of capitialism...

I hate it when people use sports as excellent examples of capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you are begging the question, I guess I will bite.

Why do you hate it when people use sports as excellent examples of capitalism?

I personally think that sports, particularly professional sports, are a great reflection of the Sense of Life of Americans. While some of the coverage can be banal at times, the games themselves are celebrations of competition and achievement, enjoyed en masse and without any guilt. How is this not a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Moebius, I intended to reply to your last post sooner, but I really got swamped with work. I think there has been some miscommunication between us. There is an interesting concept to explore here. Instead of continuing to snarl at each other, I propose that we try to start over. That being said, my comments are below.

When I said entertainment, I thought it fairly obvious that I meant entertainment. But by the end of that thread though I do acknowledge that any entertainment that intentionally damages oneself is irrational, and thereby immoral. I was merely unconvinced that dog fighting is necessarily psychologically damaging.

I am not sure why "entertainment" is different from "action" in terms of what is essential for this context. Nevertheless, this is no longer your position, so we might as well not pursue this further.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. It was not entirely clear what your position was (at least to me) since in post 12 it almost seemed like you were saying that the psychological damage is coming from the media. If you are talking about damage from knowingly accepting a position for which you are unworthy, then public opinion is really irrelevant. Perhaps you just meant that it would be a constant reminder that exacerbates your feelings and not as the cause of the problem. That is where the confusion lies.

Okay, I do see how my post is ambiguous in this respect. I think the statement "the media attention would be a constant reminder of your failure" is a better way to articulate the point I was attempting to make. Public opinion be damned.

That is akin to claiming that if some people are allergic to peanuts, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it isn't the case for everyone else. If we are talking principles, then please state first why it must be the case the media pressure will necessarily damage an athlete. Which principle(s) are you referring to that infers this?

Instead of your peanut analogy, I am thinking more along the lines of every person we know has an adverse reaction to ingesting cyanide so the burden of proof is on the individual who claims that some people may be able to ingest cyanide without harm. Analogies aside, let me try to clarify my thoughts on the issue at hand.

I did not intend to argue that given amount of media pressure would *necessarily* damage any athlete. I view the situation as more about tolerances. Analogous to how some individuals have a much greater tolerance for alcohol than others, I think some individuals will objectively have a greater tolerance than others when it comes to being hounded by the media about being a poor investment. I think we can both agree that in this context, the negative press is certainly not a good thing. As you said before, significant media attention could serve as a constant reminder of one's failure. However, I also wish to indicate that moral judgment here should not solely be on the athlete's emotional reaction to his failure. An individual who is apathetic to significant personal failure surely could not be moral, as he would be lacking in the virtue of pride.

Anyway, the keystone in my argument is that being bothered by failure to "live up to contractual expectations" is rational. I think it is although honestly it looks a little vague to me right now. At present, I see it as no different from setting any other unreasonable and unnecessarily high goal; a practice that will inevitably result in personal disappointment. In baseball, failure is not always so clear although I think there are cases where we could agree that an individual would have failed to live up to his contractual expectations. For example, a starting outfielder getting paid $10 million per year but has physically lessened to the extent where he is a mediocre fielder, is batting around .200 and has less than 10 home runs in the season.

So, again leaving issues of deception and fraud aside, is signing a contract that is seemingly above one's true value immoral? Not necessarily, as to say yes would almost assume omniscience to one's true value as a baseball player. Is signing a contract that you almost surely cannot live up to immoral? It looks like it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...