I am watching or should I say re-watching the HBO series, Rome.
One of the characters said this of the problems in ancient Rome.
"The plebians (common Roman people) are angry. The noble men are making all the money and the slaves (enslaved foreigners) are taking all the jobs."
Hmmm....
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Moral Dilemma
I had a most interesting conversation with my friend this morning.
Let me give everyone the background of our conversation first. My friend said he hates "greedy soccer players" like Frank Lampard of Chelsea United because they draw very high wages (reports suggest around 130k pounds a week). This is contributing to soccer being increasingly inaccessible to the general public, with higher ticket prices, and more expensive cable tv fees / subscription rates.
I found his "hatred" irrational because to me, Frank Lampard and all these players, to the best of my knowledge, are just pawns in the game. The clubs find the players are worthy of the high pay, and hence offer them appropriately so. We cannot expect the players to not want to seek the highest pay possible, and this does not constitute greed in my opinion. And hence as its the clubs ultimately who offer them these wages, I do not think the players are "responsible" for the escalating cost of soccer.
We had a fairly long debate on this. And ultimately we realised that we had fundamentally very different views on "responsibility" and "blame". Here I will offer a moral dilemna that captures the essence of our differences for my readers, would be very happy to hear your views.
"You are a golfer. You are about to strike your golf ball, after having done your best to check that the way infront is clear. You have abided every possible rule there is, you are absolutely sure the way infront is clear. Now you strike the golf ball. A small girl suddenly ran from the bushes 100m infront and the ball struck her temple, and she died. Are you "responsible" for her death?"
My friend thinks that regardless of the situation, the fact that the ball was struck by him, means he is in some way responsible for the death. I on the other hand, strongly believe that i would not be responsible for the death, for i could not have done better.
This is a fundamentally different way of looking at things. My friend's concern is really more on the end result -- the process does not really matter. My concern is more on the process -- could i have done better? If I could not have done better, why should i be blamed? How could I be responsible?
It extends to the first situation about the footballers, because my friend attributes "responsibility" and "blame" to the footballers, as he thinks the players' acceptance of the high wages, whether they had insisted on it or not, ultimately did "cause" the escalating costs to some degree. I on the other hand do not think so. I think every player should fight for the highest wages possible, as do any of us given any job. If the club does not think they are deserving of the wages, they would sack them, its that simple. In other words, the players could not have done better. For that reason, I don't hold the player responsible.
What do you all think?
Let me give everyone the background of our conversation first. My friend said he hates "greedy soccer players" like Frank Lampard of Chelsea United because they draw very high wages (reports suggest around 130k pounds a week). This is contributing to soccer being increasingly inaccessible to the general public, with higher ticket prices, and more expensive cable tv fees / subscription rates.
I found his "hatred" irrational because to me, Frank Lampard and all these players, to the best of my knowledge, are just pawns in the game. The clubs find the players are worthy of the high pay, and hence offer them appropriately so. We cannot expect the players to not want to seek the highest pay possible, and this does not constitute greed in my opinion. And hence as its the clubs ultimately who offer them these wages, I do not think the players are "responsible" for the escalating cost of soccer.
We had a fairly long debate on this. And ultimately we realised that we had fundamentally very different views on "responsibility" and "blame". Here I will offer a moral dilemna that captures the essence of our differences for my readers, would be very happy to hear your views.
"You are a golfer. You are about to strike your golf ball, after having done your best to check that the way infront is clear. You have abided every possible rule there is, you are absolutely sure the way infront is clear. Now you strike the golf ball. A small girl suddenly ran from the bushes 100m infront and the ball struck her temple, and she died. Are you "responsible" for her death?"
My friend thinks that regardless of the situation, the fact that the ball was struck by him, means he is in some way responsible for the death. I on the other hand, strongly believe that i would not be responsible for the death, for i could not have done better.
This is a fundamentally different way of looking at things. My friend's concern is really more on the end result -- the process does not really matter. My concern is more on the process -- could i have done better? If I could not have done better, why should i be blamed? How could I be responsible?
It extends to the first situation about the footballers, because my friend attributes "responsibility" and "blame" to the footballers, as he thinks the players' acceptance of the high wages, whether they had insisted on it or not, ultimately did "cause" the escalating costs to some degree. I on the other hand do not think so. I think every player should fight for the highest wages possible, as do any of us given any job. If the club does not think they are deserving of the wages, they would sack them, its that simple. In other words, the players could not have done better. For that reason, I don't hold the player responsible.
What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Baseball