Ethics and the St. Louis Cardinals' Hacking Case

As most are now probably aware, the St. Louis Cardinals are under investigation for possibly hacking into the database of the Houston Astros. It has been suggested that this occurred on several occasions. Whatever the outcome of this particular case, it raises some interesting ethical questions.

Here, I'll address one such question: What's wrong with hacking into your opponent's computer system?

• First, it involves breaking a just law designed to protect privacy. The information in this alleged hacking case included data related to players, trades, and scouting reports. The Cardinals have no business trying to access this information. Like any other corporation, they have no right to do this, and are obligated to respect the work and privacy of the Houston Astros.
• Second, such behavior is unsportsmanlike. If the Cardinals are guilty and were able to gain an unfair advantage with this information, it could amount to cheating and as such violates the norms and ethics of sports. We know that sportsmanship is undervalued from the elite level on down to youth sports. But we must not give in; we must protect the integrity of sports at all levels.  All parties in sport should seek to exemplify sportsmanship, whether on the field or via the internet. Sportsmanship is a virtue worth having, and many of its lessons can be adapted to other realms of life.
• Third, this hack, if it happened, places victory over integrity. There are many reasons we participate in and watch baseball (and other sports). At the elite level, we want the victory to go to the team that is able to display excellence and demonstrate superiority on the day. There are cheap and undeserved wins, of course, but one thing that makes this sort of behavior objectionable is that a win based on it has nothing to do with athletic excellence or luck. Hacking, if done to gain some sort of competitive advantage over one's opponents, amounts to putting victory ahead of honor, integrity, and the rules of the game. A win based in part on this behavior would be undeserved.
• Fourth, this shows a lack of faith in the players, manager, and coaches. As a player, I'd be insulted if the organization I played for thought it was necessary to cheat in this (or any other) way to obtain victory. I would want the organization to place its faith in the abilities of the team and coaching staff, rather than trying to gain an unfair advantage in this way.

What do you think? What else might be wrong with this? And if the Cardinals are found guilty, should there be any punishment by MLB in addition to whatever legal punishment is given?

Photo CCL.

The Sports Ethics Show: Blown Calls and Technology

Seth Bordner of The University of Alabama talks with Shawn E. Klein on The Sports Ethics Show about the problem of officiating mistakes in sport and how technology can and should be used to prevent and correct these mistakes.

Show Links:

• Seth Bordner, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, The University of Alabama
• Seth Bordner: Twitter
• “Call ‘Em as they are: What’s wrong with Blown Calls and What to do about them”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, Volume 42, Issue 1, 2015

Listen to this episode.
 Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes: iTunes Subscribe

The Olympics and Philosophy: Publication Announcement

The Olympics and Philosophy is now available in physical and Kindle formats. The book is divided into 6 parts: The Ideal Olympian, Ancient Heritage, Modern Ideals, Ethical Issues, Race and Gender Issues, and Political Power. The chapters include Olympic figures Jesse Owens, Emil Zatopek, Tommie Smith, John Carlos, and Wilma Rudolph and philosophers Jane English, Aristotle, and Edmund Husserl, among others. There are discussions of Olympic boxing, soccer/football, women's beach volleyball, and various athletic events.


From the publisher's description:

It is said the champions of the ancient Olympic Games received a crown of olive leaves, symbolizing a divine blessing from Nike, the winged goddess of victory. While the mythology of the ancient games has come to exemplify the highest political, religious, community, and individual ideals of the time, the modern Olympic Games, by comparison, are widely known as an international, bi-annual sporting event where champions have the potential to earn not only glory for their country, but lucrative endorsement deals and the perks of worldwide fame. The Olympics and Philosophy examines the Olympic Movement from a variety of theoretical perspectives to uncover the connection between athleticism and philosophy for a deeper appreciation of the Olympic Pillars of Sport, Environment, and Culture.

While today's Olympic champions are neither blessed by the gods nor rewarded with wreaths of olive, the original spirit and ancient ideals of the Olympic Movement endure in its modern embodiment. Editors Heather L. Reid and Michael W. Austin have assembled a team of international scholars to explore topics such as the concept of excellence, ethics, doping, gender, and race. Interweaving ancient and modern Olympic traditions, The Olympics and Philosophy considers the philosophical implications of the Games' intersection with historical events and modern controversy in a unique analysis of tradition and the future of the Olympiad.

Nationality, Eligibility and British Wrestling

Readers might be interested in an article in The Guardian on the controversy surrounding Eastern European wrestlers who have been fast tracked into competing for GB in the forthcoming Olympics.

British Wrestling's chairman, Malcolm Morley said, "The only countries with a wealth of talent are the eastern bloc countries. Some of the athletes we brought over wanted to compete in international competition. The only way they could do so was to transfer allegiance to Great Britain. Who can stop them living their dream? We've got to do the best for our sport at the end of the day."

Whilst The Guardian's Owain Gibson notes, "The debate cuts to the heart of issues around Britain's medal hopes and how they are funded, while embracing emotive questions of national identity and sporting fairness."

"Sportsmanship"?

Anyone have thoughts on the DQ of this pole vaulter, detailed here?

Exploitation in College Sports?

In my introductory ethics course today we had a debate related to whether or not college athletes are being exploited. To frame the issue, consider the following definitions of exploitation:

“[T]o exploit a person involves the harmful, merely instrumental utilization of him or his capacities, for one's own advantage or for the sake of one's own ends.” (Buchanan 1985, 87).

“Common to all exploitation of one person (B) by another (A)…is that A makes a profit or gain by turning some characteristic of B to his own advantage…exploitation … can occur in morally unsavory forms without harming the exploitee's interests and … despite the exploitee's fully voluntary consent to the exploitative behavior…” (Feinberg 1988, 176-79).

“Exploitation [in exchange] demands…that there is no reasonably eligible alternative [for the exploitee] and that the consideration or advantage received is incommensurate with the price paid. One is not exploited if one is offered what one desperately needs at a fair and reasonable price.” (Benn 1988, 138).

“[A] group is exploited if it has some conditionally feasible alternative under which its members would be better off.” (Roemer 1986, 136).

Given these different takes on what exploitation is, can a case be made that college athletes, at least big time college athletes, are being exploited in one or more of the above senses? As one president of Stanford University put it, big time college athletics "reeks of exploitation" because of the revenue generated for the university from the services of the athletes while many of the athletes gain little from their own college experiences.

Fairness and Performance-Enhancing Drugs

There is an ongoing debate about the use of performance-enhancing substances such as steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO amid scandals and allegations involving elite athletes such as Barry Bonds, Floyd Landis, and Roger Clemens, among others. One argument often given against the use of performance-enhancing drugs is as follows:

(1) The use of certain performance-enhancing substances constitutes a form of cheating.
(2) Therefore, the use of such substances is fundamentally unfair.
(3) Such unfairness should not be allowed in sport.
(C) The use of certain performance-enhancing substances should not be allowed.

There is some initially plausibility to this argument. It does strike one as unfair that a cyclist might win a race because he used EPO, when his opponents did not. However, as W.M. Brown points out in his "As American as Gatorade and Apple Pie: Performance Drugs and Sports," this argument misses the point in an important way. If we are considering whether or not the bans in professional leagues and international competitions like the Olympic Games should be in place, then arguing that they should be forbidden because they are against the rules is not relevant and begs the question. What is required is a justification for the rules themselves.

Moreover, another problem arises when considering issues related to fairness. There are numerous inequalities that might lead one to conclude unfairness is simply a part of sport. For example, financial resources, quality of equipment, availability of well-funded training centers, excellence of coaching, and so on could create inequalities that directly or indirectly impact athletic performance. The upshot is that we need an argument showing why some inequalities are acceptable, whereas others are not. My own view is that introducing at least some performance-enhancing substances is wrong, though I'll save my reasons for that position for a later post.