Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
DavidOdden

Shame on humanity!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Today's (or yesterday's) candidate for annoying mind-suspending knee-jerk statement of the year comes from non-senator George Mitchell who declares w.r.t. steroid use that "Everybody in baseball — commissioners, club officials, the players’ association, players — shares responsibility". It's a pity that he didn't mention "advertisers, networks, fans, beer-vendors" in his guilt-by-association screed, which would have made the philosophical underpinnings of his statement ever more obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't take those types of comments by him seriously. His job was to investigate which players had involvement with certain drugs, and making judgements was not part of that job(people just can't resist, can they?). Obviously it wasn't all those people's fault, since most of them don't have any authority or responsibility in controlling drug use. Maybe George Mitchell is close friends with MLB commissioner Bud Selig, and wanted to try to convince the public and soften their views on Selig's passiveness during those steroid years. I can only speculate on that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't take those types of comments by him seriously.
As you shouldn't, at the level of "content". You say it's obvious that he couldn't mean what he said, and yet there it is, he said it. I ponder this problem a lot, and am coming to the conclusion that even though creeping socialism is a greater immediate threat to human physical existence, Mitchell's sort of mind-killing mindless statement is the greatest long-term threat to man's existence, since the nature and consequences of such statements is much harder to identify and combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ponder this problem a lot, and am coming to the conclusion that even though creeping socialism is a greater immediate threat to human physical existence, Mitchell's sort of mind-killing mindless statement is the greatest long-term threat to man's existence, since the nature and consequences of such statements is much harder to identify and combat.

Isn't his comment really the foundation of socialism, or any type of collectivist state? The principle that everybody is responsible for everybody. It's the reason why socialism is an immediate threat to humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's (or yesterday's) candidate for annoying mind-suspending knee-jerk statement of the year comes from non-senator George Mitchell who declares w.r.t. steroid use that "Everybody in baseball — commissioners, club officials, the players’ association, players — shares responsibility". It's a pity that he didn't mention "advertisers, networks, fans, beer-vendors" in his guilt-by-association screed, which would have made the philosophical underpinnings of his statement ever more obvious.

Yeah, it's not like the stadiums emptied when steroid use was revealed.

What's really scary is Clinton offered this guy Harry Blackmun's seat on SCOTUS in 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's not like the stadiums emptied when steroid use was revealed.

What's really scary is Clinton offered this guy Harry Blackmun's seat on SCOTUS in 1994.

We have been under the power of The Socialist Occupation Government (aka the SOG) since at least the time of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Conspiracy theorists date it back to the passage of the 16-th amendment.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, after careful consideration and further evaluation of the available evidence, I've decided I'm responsible for all the steroid use and abuse in Baseball.

You see, I hate baseball. It's a do-nothing time waster that's good only for pre-emptying network and syndicated shows I'm interested in (well, it was until the mid-90s), therefore I don't watch it, I'm not interested in it, and I couldn't care less whether it ceased to exist or not. Naturally this state of affairs would bother Baseball executives, who would then pressure their players to perform better in order to amke me become itnerested in their alleged sport. This in turn leads to players who cannot possibly meet the superhuman expectations of team owners and the president of the league and commissioners of boht (three?) conferences, so they turn to steroids.

I'm still not interested in baseball. I still think it's a do-nothing time waster you need to be drunk in order to enjoy. But I get to hear about it in the non-sports media now, therefore my attention is drawn to it (and is promptly turned back by me to more useful subjects, like the latest re-run of Law & Order). But just because it is patently absurd and demonstrably a colossal failure, doesn't mean this vast right-field conspiracy is any less real.

I will not apologize because I've done nothing wrong. But I do feel sorry for the players and I'm letting them know they can stop now. it's useless. On the other hand, if you could get to the bottom of a really interesting baseball mystery which has confounded sages for generations, I might acquire an interest in this alleged sport.

So tell me, if you have figured it out, Who's On First?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's (or yesterday's) candidate for annoying mind-suspending knee-jerk statement of the year comes from non-senator George Mitchell who declares w.r.t. steroid use that "Everybody in baseball — commissioners, club officials, the players’ association, players — shares responsibility". It's a pity that he didn't mention "advertisers, networks, fans, beer-vendors" in his guilt-by-association screed, which would have made the philosophical underpinnings of his statement ever more obvious.

If I may pose a slightly different perspective on the matter, if but for the sake of adding another facet to the apparently one-sided jewel of a discussion everyone is having here, i.e., Edmond Burke is recorded as once having said that "the only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...."

In viewing the comments of Mr. Mitchell from this angle, one is readily able to discern the method from what others here have construed as being the madness of Mr. Mitchell's comments.

I'll explain with some more readily relatable examples: while no, you're not the one who mugged the little ol' lady for the contents of her purse, are you no less guilty for having looked the other way and pretending that nothing happened/failing/refusing to provide the police with a description of her assailant?

Or how about the grocery store clerk you see through the window of the convenience store being held at gunpoint by some robber while you're outside pumping gas...are you no less guilty for lying and saying that you didn't see who did it?

Then, how is it that you console yourself at some time later in life when it turns out to be your Grandmother that gets mugged, or you or your teen-aged son or daughter that gets held up while they're working the register at a convenience store...why is it that the relevance of your guilt in a situation by keeping quite/looking the other way/ignoring what is happening right in front of you, is only apparent to you when it's you or someone you know or love, involved?

Granted, the incidents of player doping are far from such onerous behavior as mugging or robbery, but to this end, could the players then be guilty for seeing or knowing of their bud's use of PED's* (*Performance Enhancing Drugs) and not saying something to them or reporting them excuse then from the guilt of the act? Could the player's association be any less incriminated in the player's use of PID's after reviewing a notable increase in the player's performance records or having heard rumors of the same and not investigating?

As for the club officials and the commissioners, well, if not them then just whose job is it anyway in the world of baseball to keep an eye on everyone to insure in the continued integrity of a World renown sporting activity, albeit an ingrained historical past time of American youth, culture and societal venue? Just whose responsibility for minding the sheep is it but the herders?!?

Is anyone responsible? Is there any "responsibility" to be had at all? You all may disagree with my rationality now but, I wonder, just what will you have to say when it comes knocking on your door? Will you continue to look the other way when you no longer can...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jewel of a discussion

I'm glad you recognize that this is a fascinating and enlightening discussion. It's refreshing to see you warm up to the forum a little.

I'll explain with some more readily relatable examples: while no, you're not the one who mugged the little ol' lady for the contents of her purse, are you no less guilty for having looked the other way and pretending that nothing happened/failing/refusing to provide the police with a description of her assailant?

Wait a minute... in light of this I'm begining to think your "jewel" comment was sarcastic. This sounds like more of your "duty ethics" again.

Well, to answer your question, you are less guilty than the guy who initiated force against the old lady through no fault, planning or knowledge of your own. In fact, depending on a more specific context, you could not be guilty of anything at all.

Or how about the grocery store clerk you see through the window of the convenience store being held at gunpoint by some robber while you're outside pumping gas...are you no less guilty for lying and saying that you didn't see who did it?

See the answer above.

Then, how is it that you console yourself at some time later in life when it turns out to be your Grandmother that gets mugged, ... (emotional appeal snipped)... when it's you or someone you know or love, involved?

You practically answer your own question here. People don't value the lives of all other people the same as the value the lives of those they know and love. I know that the 49 year female convenience clerk down the street does not mean nearly as much to me as my 49 year older sister. I would be far more willing to put myself at risk for the sake of my sister than I would some stranger. How does this not make sense to you? Do you love and value all human life at the same level? Would you take the same risks to save the life of Joe Cornhusker that you would to save your mother's life? Charles Manson? Pauly Shore? (okay, that last one isn't fair)

I wonder, just what will you have to say when it comes knocking on your door?

When steroid use comes knocking at my door? I'm trying to imagine a context in which I see that happening... and I'm failing. If it comes like the mormons, I'll probably say "No thanks." and shut the door.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you recognize that this is a fascinating and enlightening discussion. It's refreshing to see you warm up to the forum a little.

Wait a minute... in light of this I'm begining to think your "jewel" comment was sarcastic. This sounds like more of your "duty ethics" again.

The context was intended to serve a two-part function wherein the first part was to make note of the overtly obvious one-sided discussion and secondly, as a rhetorical axiom utilized as validation for my usage of the term "facet" by way of emphasizing that members here had presented and were championing but one aspect of a topic that consisted of at least two(2) sides...a little way of expressing that all sides of a topic must be considered, contemplated and mulled over in order to form a complete perspective of the topic(s) under debate before any opinions are formed and commented upon. Call it intellectual license.

Well, to answer your question, you are less guilty than the guy who initiated force against the old lady through no fault, planning or knowledge of your own. In fact, depending on a more specific context, you could not be guilty of anything at all.

Granted, definitely "less guilty", yet guilty nonetheless...yes?! Why...? Because you could have said or done something that may have caused the perpetrator to cease and desist in their grievous actions, or you could have contacted the authorities and relayed information to them that could have lead to the capture and arrest of this person, thereby bringing them to justice and preventing them from harming another (I'll get back to this point momentarily).

You practically answer your own question here (but that was the point). People don't value the lives of all other people the same as the value the lives of those they know and love. I know that the 49 year female convenience clerk down the street does not mean nearly as much to me as my 49 year older sister. I would be far more willing to put myself at risk for the sake of my sister than I would some stranger. How does this not make sense to you? Do you love and value all human life at the same level? Would you take the same risks to save the life of Joe Cornhusker that you would to save your mother's life? Charles Manson? Pauly Shore? (okay, that last one isn't fair)

LOL!! No...no it wasn't fair at all. Anyway...

I'll respond by answering your questions with one of my own since you appear to have missed the point I was attempting to relate entirely, i.e., while I understand that it's common practice for people to place the lives of loved ones above those of what we define as mere strangers, tell me, how is it going to feel to have to live with the knowledge that when you had an opportunity to take the person that you saw (but chose to keep silent about) rob the convenience store clerk off of the streets, you instead chose to ignore that anything was happening, turns out to be the very person who showed up on your 49 yr. old sister's doorstep to mug her?!?!?!?

When steroid use comes knocking at my door? I'm trying to imagine a context in which I see that happening... and I'm failing. If it comes like the mormons, I'll probably say "No thanks." and shut the door.

I meant that in a purely "figurative speaking" sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is it going to feel to have to live with the knowledge that when you had an opportunity to take the person that you saw (but chose to keep silent about) rob the convenience store clerk off of the streets, you instead chose to ignore that anything was happening, turns out to be the very person who showed up on your 49 yr. old sister's doorstep to mug her?!?!?!?

To answer concisely, I'd feel pretty bad, however, hindsight is 20/20.

The point is that one has a duty to voluntarily report anything to the police. Instead, one would recognize the value preserving property of reporting a crime (removing or punishing rights violators), and thus reporting the crime would be the moral thing to do. Those who witnessed, but did not report, are not guilty at all of a crime. The criminal is the cause, not the witnesses.

However, this analogy, from the start, is completely irrelevant. We're talking drug abuse here, something for which no rights were violated. You are speaking of violent crime, for which there ARE victims. One is free to state that steroid abuse is stupid, even evil, but no one but the ABUSER HIMSELF is responsible for his actions. Just as the criminal who robs your sweet ol' gramma is the one responsible for his actions.

Edited by Chops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, definitely "less guilty", yet guilty nonetheless...yes?!

Not necessarily. You have not provided enough context in your example to say yes, he would be guilty of something. Also, which type of guilt are you referring to; legal or moral. He may be legally guilty of something but not morally guilty of something.

Why...? Because you could have said or done something that may have caused the perpetrator to cease and desist ...

That is only if you follow an ethic of duty, of unchosen obligation. You keep forgetting that you are on a discussion board where the ethic is that of rational self-interest, which may still include taking some action, or it may not. If you can demonstrate a full and specific context in which it would be in your rational self-interest to act, then you would be "guilty" of something (morally speaking) if you failed to do so.

how is it going to feel to have to live with the knowledge that when you had an opportunity to take the person that you saw (but chose to keep silent about) rob the convenience store clerk off of the streets, you instead chose to ignore that anything was happening, turns out to be the very person who showed up on your 49 yr. old sister's doorstep to mug her?!?!?!?

Well, I see your question and I'll raise you one; how are you going to feel if you took action against this criminal and in retalition he goes and attacks your sister? You see, if you had just let him alone, he would never have taken an interest in seeking revenge against you or your family. Your "what if" game goes both ways.

To actually answer your question I don't know how I would feel because you haven't provided me with enough context for me to determine if it would have been in my rational self-interest to act at the time. One acts within in the context of what he knows at the time, not necessarily based on considering all possibilities however remote they may be in reality. The likelihood that the same robber would show up on my sister's doorstep can range from naught to very high. For instance, if this robbery I observed took place in San Francisco, and my sister lives in Virginia, the likelihood that the same robber would attack my sister is probably zero. However, if he's robbing a store and my sister lives right next door and he sees her looking out the window at him during the robbery, the likelihood of an attack is far greater. But if by some astronomically improbable chance the SF robber made his way to VA and attacked my sister, I probably wouldn't feel bad that I might possibly could have done something because it was not at all reasonable consideration at the time. Yes, I would feel bad for my sister that she was a victim of crime in general, but I probably wouldn't feel like I had any guilt or culpability in that crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I may pose a slightly different perspective on the matter, if but for the sake of adding another facet to the apparently one-sided jewel of a discussion everyone is having here, i.e., Edmond Burke is recorded as once having said that "the only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...."
Uh huh. But even though every question has at least two sides, at least all but one of them is wrong. Are you saying that there's intrinsic merit in discussing the wrong side?
while no, you're not the one who mugged the little ol' lady for the contents of her purse, are you no less guilty for having looked the other way and pretending that nothing happened/failing/refusing to provide the police with a description of her assailant?
Completely inappropriate comparison. The restriction on steroid use is a private employer-employee matter, not a rights violation issue. Nevertheless, you are not guilty of mugging a little old lady if you don't dial 911. The man who laid the concrete for the sidewalk on which the lady was mugged is not responsible for enabling the mugging. The man who invented concrete, which ultimately enabled the mugging in a vastly contorted chain of "if only you hadn't..." statement is not responsible for the mugging. And needless to say, the lady who got mugged is not responsible for her reckless victimhood.

The people who are responsible for steroid use, contra rules forbidding it, are the users and any coaches or trainers who actively urge the use. All other people are causally innocent. I also reserve some element of moral condemnation for people who witness such behavior and know that this is properly prohibited behavior, if it is specifically in their interest to turn in the user (and of course not against their interest to do so, for example if you're the steroid salesman). AFAICT that would apply only to other players, and even then I would suspect that PED users shoot up in private.

In lieu of specific evidence that an individual club owner knowingly tolerated rule-breaking -- such evidence was not presented, a sweeping guilt by association claim like his is worse that false. Mitchell's statement is particularly offensive because it engages in the morally reprehensible crime of automatic, collective guilt-assignment with utter disregard for reality. You, archimedes, are personally responsible for the decay of western civilization, for being a passive enabler of the cult of mind killers. See, don't you feel terrible now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To answer concisely, I'd feel pretty bad, however, hindsight is 20/20.

Granted, but...is your own morality/common sense/sense of self-preservation/decency/humanity "20/20", or are those traits of civility also something one perceives as being something to review in retrospection?

The point is that one has a duty to voluntarily report anything to the police. Instead, one would recognize the value preserving property of reporting a crime (removing or punishing rights violators), and thus reporting the crime would be the moral thing to do. Those who witnessed, but did not report, are not guilty at all of a crime. The criminal is the cause, not the witnesses.

No doubt, "[t]he criminal is the cause", whereas the "witness" is merely the perpetuator of said criminality...at least those whom witness yet chose not to inform the local authorities.

However, this analogy, from the start, is completely irrelevant. We're talking drug abuse here, something for which no rights were violated. You are speaking of violent crime, for which there ARE victims. One is free to state that steroid abuse is stupid, even evil, but no one but the ABUSER HIMSELF is responsible for his actions. Just as the criminal who robs your sweet ol' gramma is the one responsible for his actions.

I made use of the analogy as it is one more readily perceived by the general public as we all cannot be World Series baseball players/athletes, but we can all understand/relate to/have experienced some form of criminality in our lives or the lives of those with whom we associate, and I believe that it served well my needs of conveying the ideology I intended.

As for there being no real "victims" in the case of athlete steroid/drug usage other than the user themselves, I'd invite you to argue that premise with the other players, e.g., those that were also interested in matching and surpassing the "Home Run King's" record, but saw a futility to their dreams given the apparent ease in which certain other so-called "team players" attained those very goals; or how about any of the patrons or fans, fans that show up wearing their teams colors (be they color-coded/team franchised clothing or body-painted on) who frequent and support this or that team out of a sense of pride, spirit and awe at being able to have first-hand experience of the personal accomplishments of physical abilities and triumphs of the human soul irregardless of whatever meteorological inclement or however far down in points that the team may be or even just to be able to say "he came from my town" with a sense of dignity; or how about the fathers &/or mothers out there intent on teaching their children how to play the "all time greatest American sport", only it's not so 'all time' or 'greatest' anymore but yet another aspect of our ever de-evolving society that's being debased thanks to drugs?

Just as you're free to say that there are no other victims, I'm as free to say you're wearing blinders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. You have not provided enough context in your example to say yes, he would be guilty of something. Also, which type of guilt are you referring to; legal or moral. He may be legally guilty of something but not morally guilty of something.

Moral, ethically and economically (I'll get to this latter in a moment).

That is only if you follow an ethic of duty, of unchosen obligation. You keep forgetting that you are on a discussion board where the ethic is that of rational self-interest, which may still include taking some action, or it may not. If you can demonstrate a full and specific context in which it would be in your rational self-interest to act, then you would be "guilty" of something (morally speaking) if you failed to do so.

Is it not in my "self-interest" to keep criminality out of my home, my neighborhood, my business? Is it not in my "rational self-interest to eliminate it from our World? Is not criminality antithetical to self-interest, to capitalism itself (granted, except for those capitalists who've endeavored to earn a penny or two by producing anti-crime products like handcuffs, alarms, tasers and what have you)? Surely you can realize the personal/financial benefits of living in a low/no crime home &/or neighborhood, or working for a company that isn't ransacked by it's employees for whatever materials or equipment that is at hand? I mean, do I really have to explain the rational best/self-interests of these benefits you someone such as yourself?

Well, I see your question and I'll raise you one; how are you going to feel if you took action against this criminal and in retali[a]tion he goes and attacks your sister? You see, if you had just let him alone, he would never have taken an interest in seeking revenge against you or your family. Your "what if" game goes both ways.

To actually answer your question I don't know how I would feel because you haven't provided me with enough context for me to determine if it would have been in my rational self-interest to act at the time. One acts within in the context of what he knows at the time, not necessarily based on considering all possibilities however remote they may be in reality. The likelihood that the same robber would show up on my sister's doorstep can range from naught to very high. For instance, if this robbery I observed took place in San Francisco, and my sister lives in Virginia, the likelihood that the same robber would attack my sister is probably zero. However, if he's robbing a store and my sister lives right next door and he sees her looking out the window at him during the robbery, the likelihood of an attack is far greater. But if by some astronomically improbable chance the SF robber made his way to VA and attacked my sister, I probably wouldn't feel bad that I might possibly could have done something because it was not at all reasonable consideration at the time. Yes, I would feel bad for my sister that she was a victim of crime in general, but I probably wouldn't feel like I had any guilt or culpability in that crime.

We're really just mincing words here, each intent on championing their version of their perspective on this subject, all the while over-shadowing the main issue when we both know (especially you, officer) that criminality is wrong regardless of the degree, manner or methodology in which it is employed...is any of this contextual enough for you to now understand in order to make your determination or do you intend to continue to be vague and obscure in your rationalization of the issues presented here?

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh huh. But even though every question has at least two sides, at least all but one of them is wrong. Are you saying that there's intrinsic merit in discussing the wrong side?Completely inappropriate comparison. The restriction on steroid use is a private employer-employee matter, not a rights violation issue. Nevertheless, you are not guilty of mugging a little old lady if you don't dial 911. The man who laid the concrete for the sidewalk on which the lady was mugged is not responsible for enabling the mugging. The man who invented concrete, which ultimately enabled the mugging in a vastly contorted chain of "if only you hadn't..." statement is not responsible for the mugging. And needless to say, the lady who got mugged is not responsible for her reckless victimhood.

The people who are responsible for steroid use, contra rules forbidding it, are the users and any coaches or trainers who actively urge the use. All other people are causally innocent. I also reserve some element of moral condemnation for people who witness such behavior and know that this is properly prohibited behavior, if it is specifically in their interest to turn in the user (and of course not against their interest to do so, for example if you're the steroid salesman). AFAICT that would apply only to other players, and even then I would suspect that PED users shoot up in private.

In lieu of specific evidence that an individual club owner knowingly tolerated rule-breaking -- such evidence was not presented, a sweeping guilt by association claim like his is worse that false. Mitchell's statement is particularly offensive because it engages in the morally reprehensible crime of automatic, collective guilt-assignment with utter disregard for reality. You, archimedes, are personally responsible for the decay of western civilization, for being a passive enabler of the cult of mind killers. See, don't you feel terrible now?

Lol!

I've covered all of your contentions/objections elsewhere in my replies found in the above two posts directed at others here...apologies for your having drawn the short straw this time around.

The one point of contention of your post not previously touched upon by others is the "...intrinsic merit of discussing the wrong side" of a question/debate, ergo, the intrinsic merit is to be found in un-raveling/covering all potential aspects/facets/perspectives of an issue and addressing each in turn to insure that each has been duly considered, noted and debunked so that one is left with but one or two possible scenarios for any given situation/reply to a question.

Here's a question for you, DO, and others here, one I've mentioned earlier but all have chosen to ignore (see Post #13):

If the only way that you can win is by cheating, is that really winning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not in my "self-interest" to keep criminality out of my home, my neighborhood, my business?

Is it? If so, then you act accordingly. However, your questions were not addressing what you would do, they were addressing general scenarios that lacked sufficient information to form a moral evaluation on the person who may have chosen not to act. Just don't presume that what is in your rational self-interest is necessarily in someone else's.

I mean, do I really have to explain the rational best/self-interests of these benefits you someone such as yourself?

No at all. I have a much firmer grasp on that than you. I shudder to think what you may think is in my best interest.

We're really just mincing words here

Thanks for your confession, but I'm not mincing anything so leave me out of it.

is any of this contextual enough for you to now understand in order to make your determination or do you intend to continue to be vague and obscure in your rationalization of the issues presented here?

Given that I have already demonstrated that your scenarios lacked enough context to begin with and given that you have not revised them, I would say, no. And I'm being rational, not rationalizing, there is a difference. Fair warning though, leave the ad hominem out next time whether directed at me or any other user. Twice in your post you have accused me of intellectually dishonest behavior. Next time I won't simply address it in a public post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the only way that you can win is by cheating, is that really winning?

Of course not.

But remember, the rules are determined by the organization of which the players are members. If the organization doesn't establish it as a rule, then it's not cheating. If it IS established as a rule, but not enforced, then it might as well not be a rule. An unenforced rule is a useless rule.

But most of the discussion of this thread is not about that, but about the discussion you're bringing up about duty, and how a bystander who fails to report a crime is somehow guilty by default, apparently regardless of context.

Edited by Chops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a question for you, DO, and others here, one I've mentioned earlier but all have chosen to ignore (see Post #13):

If the only way that you can win is by cheating, is that really winning?

Let me answer that with a question that is as relevant to the topic: is suffering inherent in human nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it? If so, then you act accordingly. However, your questions were not addressing what you would do, they were addressing general scenarios that lacked sufficient information to form a moral evaluation on the person who may have chosen not to act. Just don't presume that what is in your rational self-interest is necessarily in someone else's.

Granted, though I feel that you're merely being facetious as I fail to see how anyone benefits from criminality, save for the criminals themselves...or law enforcement officials such as yourself("?").

Perhaps you'd like to provide us with a synopsis of the benefits of criminality for the law enforcement community by way of substantiating your ongoing contentious behavior?

Given that I have already demonstrated that your scenarios lacked enough context to begin with and given that you have not revised them, I would say, no. And I'm being rational, not rationalizing, there is a difference. Fair warning though, leave the ad hominem out next time whether directed at me or any other user. Twice in your post you have accused me of intellectually dishonest behavior. Next time I won't simply address it in a public post.

All of this is your just being argumentative/refusing to acknowledge the benefits of a society free of criminality by way of supporting a career choice in the field of law enforcement, albeit even if it puts people such as yourself out of a job (at least state side anyways as I can think of any number of countries that could stand a good bit of policing for those officers so insistent on steadfastly clinging to employment in law enforcement to forsake retraining for another career)?

In short, I've accused you of nothing other than dodging the point and no amount of your waving your board Moderator status credentials around via veiled, albeit direct, threats of repercussions for anyone who challenges you/your contentions will change that.

If you're wrong, you're wrong. This is not a legal forum, this is a public discussion forum and as such such nuances of contextual specifics are not required to forward/support an opinion/ideology/argument, especially since all that one is attempting to convey is an idea of common morality/ethics.

True, one could argue that continued/free reigned criminality validates employment in law enforcement, but such an argument would be spurious at best as the core tenet of law enforcement is the stopping/elimination of crime and the protection of the public/law abiding citizens from the same.

Irregardless, it all boils down to whether or not laws governing the use of PED's by athletes exist, which they do...and whether they were broken, which they were. Thereafter it becomes a matter of plausible deniability and demonstrable responsibility of sporting commission associates and officials/the delegation of authority amongst the ranks thereof, which will all boil down to just whom is responsible for what, after all, why do you think that so many government officials have been jumping ship under the current presidency?

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not.

But remember, the rules are determined by the organization of which the players are members. If the organization doesn't establish it as a rule, then it's not cheating. If it IS established as a rule, but not enforced, then it might as well not be a rule. An unenforced rule is a useless rule.

But most of the discussion of this thread is not about that, but about the discussion you're bringing up about duty, and how a bystander who fails to report a crime is somehow guilty by default, apparently regardless of context.

The point that I'm attempting to make is that everyone should be morally obligated to play by the rules as doing so benefits the one just as much as it does all equally, albeit even more so for the individual as they'll know in advance what to expect going into any given situation, thereby allowing them to extrapolate the benefits of doing so well in advance.

Rules are rules for a reason, that being (in this instance) for the sake of fairness/to level the playing field whereat the only allowed deviation is the skill level that the player, the individual, brings to the game. How else is man to recognize/acknowledge his achievement above and beyond those that have gone before him?

Having rules that are loosely/never enforced pays little but lip service to the institution that devised the rules, an institution that was built upon character, honesty, fairness, fellowship, pride, gamemanship and opportunity...opportunity for those willing to make the sacrifices demanded by the given sport, to take what has been given to all others and to achieve more with it not by breaking the rules, but by beating them at their own game by adhering to the rules. Therein lies the true sense of accomplishment, of achievement, of self-improvement because anyone can win by cheating, but the true victor wins merely by playing the game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me answer that with a question that is as relevant to the topic: is suffering inherent in human nature?

Touché...yet, I counter, cheating is a proclivity devised solely of human immorality, a character flaw per se, whereas suffering is a necessary predisposition of living and learning, neither of which requires cheating.

p.s. Well played, BTW.

Edited by -archimedes-

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...