Not to change the subject raised by Greg (I agree that the utilitarian view may not be wrong, just thought of incorrectly) but I wanted to talk a bit about a subject that came up last night in class; steroids in baseball.
I read an article this morning about the Roger Clemens hearing (http://www6.comcast.net/sports/articles/general/2007/12/23/BBO.Steroids.Clemens/) and I am questioning everyone’s ethical take on the matter. Sure it is easy to say that athletes that "cheat without cheating" are acting unethically, but what about the other side of the fence. Congress has hosted numerous hearings and sessions questioning and probing these athletes and at first I was all for the politicians getting involved. But now, I question their ethics as to why they are getting involved. Does anyone in the class feel as though the politicians involved are acting as a platform for re-election and popularity rather than the actual concern of the matter at hand? Roger Clemens made over $20 million last season, politicians get paid well, Capital Hill congressional hearings cost money, and television/media coverage cost money.
I guess the question I have is: Is anyone that is involved in the performance enhancing cases in baseball doing it for the right ethical reasons or are they participating to make more money, become more popular, or raise their television ratings? I think societies ethics are flawed, not just the cheaters.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)