In a Deontology perspective this would be immoral because the player has violated the rules and standards of their contract. People want to follow rules to make moral decisions, but the reward may out way the consequence. Consequentialism is when a decision is made if the oneself feels that the action out ways the consequence. An athlete would think performing at the max for a year and getting the fame would be more important rather than the consequence; it could be the other way around also. When a player takes steroids he or she would rather take the risk for strength and skills, rather than worrying about future consequences.
So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
Other external factors that come into affect Dixon says are poor referring, cheating, gamesmanship, and bad luck. This is a devastating way to loose but its part of the game. When a team wins off of one of these factors is an undeserved win, because they did not show superior skill over the other team. Ties are accepted though in
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
Contrary to popular belief, you can criticise someone of another race without being racist. Booing Adam Goodes is not racist, it’s part of sport. The booing of Adam Goodes has a simple explanation. You boo someone you don’t like, and you cheer someone you do like, that’s how sport works. Now days people see too far into issues and it simply just becomes an issue of wether it is politically correct or not.
Although the players may be supporting the coach’s actions, most are calling for their heads…and possibly for good reason. These acts are not only premeditated, but they are malicious and create a bullying environment that is already dangerous for the players. Paying people to harm others is not legal in our society no matter what the circumstances may be. The only exception to this would be boxing or UFC matches, but even then, there are not bonuses for ripping off an arm, leg or ear. Should there be legal ramifications to those involved in bounty programs?
If your standards are high as a coach, it sometimes takes a great deal of courage to maintain them, especially when opposing coaches are cheating to win games. Coaches will deliberately break rules and then rationalize their behavior by saying that their opponents all do it, so they must break the same rules to compete. No matter what the rationale, breaking the rules is unethical and serves as a poor example to all the athletes that are involved. You should be strong enough so that no game is worth winning if you have to cheat to do it. If you do not believe this, you simply teach youngsters that cheating can be justified if someone else is cheating too.
There have been efforts made by philosophers to reconcile the thoughts on determinism and voluntarism. Psychology being a science of human behavior does not have scientific laws to prove the presence of fate/destiny or choice. But that does not mean that the controversy ends, but it widens, since, some of the behavior is unpredictable and some behavior is voluntary. Therefore, a mid-way approach to the free will and determinism can prove to end the debate and solve the issue. For example, the illness, stress, and happiness are not choices, but they just really ‘happen’, whereas, the free will lets us achieve our goals and targets for a better life as a
6). Aristotle also conveys that he believes the virtuous person is more honorable because “he is able to avoid bodily pleasures, but not all pleasures, since there are pleasures of the temperate [virtuous] person too” (NE, VII, ch.12, sec. 7). While the continent person does eventually chose the right action it is more of a deliberation from him to come to a choice because he is aware of the wrong decision as well. The virtuous person does not at all go through this deliberation process because he is not aware of the wrong decision.