by
Jason Thorpe
201102759
A laboratory report presented to D. Vossen
In Sport Ethics
Department of Human Kinetics
St. Francis Xavier University
February 18th 2014
The purpose of this paper is to determine if the argument presented is sound or unsound. To do
so I will be using my collective knowledge from class lectures and handouts within Sports Ethics. The
argument can be broken down into two propositions and a conclusion. The first proposition states that
the player’s conduct is legitimately appraised as game spoiling. The second proposition is that all acts of
game-spoiling are unethical. To determine if these statements are true or false I will be using Bernard
Suits definition of game playing and the schizophrenic athlete presented by Deb Vossen. By doing so I
hope to provide solid evidence in support of my claims and can provide evidence that the conclusion can
be deemed true. To increase your understanding surrounding the argument the following paragraphs
break down the methods that will be used to decipher the argument.
P1: The player’s conduct is legitimately appraised as game spoiling
P2: All acts of game- spoiling are unethical
C: The player’s conduct is unethical
Figure 1:……………………………………
To define what game playing is we must look at the essential definition of game-playing
constructed by Suits. The widely accepted model of game-playing is composed of four elements known
as the prelusory goal, lusory means, constitutive rules and lusory attitude. In order to have a better
understanding of the presented terms I will break each down into its basic components by providing a
definition followed by an example and how they coincide together. Throughout the four elements I will
be using the sport of basketball as a demonstration.
1+2+3+4= Game Playing
(1) The first element of game playing theory is the prelusory goal. Defined as an achievable state of
affairs able to be conceived of prior to and independently of any game of which it is or may come to be a
part of. Games that we take part in have a goal associated with them. When looking at basketball it is to
shoot the ball in net. It is known to be the prelusory goal because the team works together to maneuver
the ball down the court where a teammate will attempt to score and place the ball within the net. To do
so efficiently there are rules to abide by which leads us to the second defining feature of game-playing.
(2)The second element of game playing is the lusory means. This component involves a limitation in the
means of goal achievement. As stated above the goal is to get the ball in net. These things which are
allowed by the rules are designed to be useful, advantageous and or helpful in goal achievement.
Continuing to use basketball players are allowed to pass, dripple and shoot the ball. These actions allow
the game player to pursue the goal with less difficulty.
(3)Constitutive Rules are embedded in games to erect unnecessary obstacles via a limitation in the
permissible means of goal achievement. As I stated above lusory means are rules that are permitted to
achieve the goal with less difficulty. Constitutive rules are all other means that are prohibited as they are
more efficient then those depicted in the lusory means. An example to define this would be a basketball
player bring a gun to the court. Instead of competing against the opponents and using the lusory means
to defeat them the indivual pulls out a gun and injures or kills the opposition. Doing so allows the
shooters team to attack the net at a great rate and ease.
(4)Lusory Attitude is required in a participatory agreement to abide by rules designed to satisfy the
principle of inefficiency. By practicing a game you are aware of the rules that construct that game and
therefore should be upheld to abide by those rules during competition. When a basketball team comes
to the court they are expected to respect their opposition, fans and coaches. When not playing within
the rules stated the sport governing body will make their presence felt by handing out disciplinary
punishment. For example, this past week a basketball player shoved a fan and received a three game
suspension. This provides an example of a negative lusoy attitude.
To help you get a greater understanding of how we are going to evaluate P2 in the argument it would be
beneficial to oneself to understand the Schizophrenic athlete. Like the medical term individuals
including athletes battle with the so called voices within their head. Like the devil and angel depected in
childhood films the schizophrenic athlete has to deal with the Human Ethics coach otherwise known as
the angel and the grasshopper otherwise known as the Game ethics coach. Each one has their own
motivation and ideals about how the game should be played. When providing examples to further
define the Human and Game ethic coaches I will be looking at boxing.The angel can be described as one
who encourages obedience to the rules of civilized conduct with other in society. In other words it
encourages being a human being first and a game player second. When two individuals step into a
boxing ring the angel would say stop hitting him or don’t even start to do so. Take away the crowd and
the ring and look at yourself and understand how foolish you would look if you were doing this out in
the streets. Not only would the individuals look ridiculous but there would be further punishment from
the law.
When looking at the game ethics coach these are individuals who encourage constitutive rules
of the game. In the end all the grasshopper wants is for the athlete to play the game and not to spoil it.
We will look and define game spoiling and game playing in greater detail further on. For now just
understand that it can be understood as achieving the goal no matter what the circumstances are. When
looking at boxing the grasshopper would tell the athlete to keep hitting harder. If the opponent is still
standing keep on hitting no matter how injured he is until he is knocked out on the ground you keep
doing what you are doing. The mentality of the grasshopper is that victory on the score board is the only
thing that is acceptable.
I mention the terms game playing and game spoiling in the above paragraph and here I explain each.
Game playing means that individuals are going to achieve the prelusory goal no matter what situation
occurs. When using this perspective in the case of basketballs we can say that if a baby was to crawl
onto the court while you are pursuing ball in net you have two options. If you were to continue in the
pursuit of the goal and step on the baby that would demonstrate game playing. In the case that you
believe that you should avoid stepping on the baby even though you would have to step out of bounds
and no longer have the ability to achieve the goal in net exemplifies game spoiling. The case of the two
coaches discussed in the above paragraph the grasshopper would approve and understand you stepping
on the baby. If you were to step out of bounds and possibly save the baby’s life that would show the
humanity in sport but the grasshopper would still be irate.
Now that you have a greater understanding of the terms associated with game playing along
with game and human ethics we can begin looking at the central argument. When talking about the two
propositions I will be using the same example for each;
In 1887, in an American Association baseball game between Louisville and Brooklyn, a Lousville
player named Reddy Mack crosses home plate and turns around to interfere with the Brooklyn catcher.
This interference prevents the Brooklyn catcher from making a tag on the next Louisville runner. While
the jostling continues, a third Louisville runner makes use of the opportunity to cross home plate. At this
time in baseball history the rules stated that “no base runner may interfere with a fielder “ but did not
prohibit interference from non-base runners (which) Reddy Mack was classified once he crossed home
plate.)
P1: The player’s conduct is legitimately appraised as game-spoiling
When looking at premise one I believe that it is deemed to be true. Game spoiling by definition
is when the athlete loses sight of the prelusory goal in favor of a more humane act. But when an athlete
tries to hurt another or remove them from their job with force it can be seen as true game-spoiling.
Games are meant to allow people the escapee from their everyday life and let them enjoy an hour or
two of activity. When someone forgets the purity of what games should entail that is when trouble
arises. You might suggest that in this scenario the athletes are pro athletes and that the game is played
at a more serious level. Mack did not show by definition game-spoiling but he did spoil the game for the
Brooklyn catcher. That is why I believe that that proposition one can be deemed true as the actions of
Mack actually spoiled the game.
P2: All acts of game-spoiling are unethical
Still looking at the scenario I think that we as bystanders can understand that Reddy Mack found
a loop hole within the rules of baseball at the time. Even though the rule was not stated within the
official rule book of Major League Baseball it is to my understanding that the fans, coaches and players
understood that this type of action had no place in their game. Yes the grasshopper would have told
Mack to do anything possible such as running over the catcher because it is in constitutive rules of the
game. Saying this, there is a point when one must look at one’s self and the actions in which they
display. In the end, athletes have to understand that it is just a game and that life is much more
important. Aspects such as family, friends and happiness are much more important than a game and I
fully believe that you will not find too many people whom will argue against this. When these are in
jeporitey that is when the line has been crossed. With the increase in technology we have seen an
increase in examples both exemplifying the Game Ethics coach and the Human Ethics coach. When a
autism teen gets the ability to go out on the court and shoot three pointers in the middle of the game
such as Jason McELwain did in 2008. Or in the National womens softball championship when a member
of team west injuried herself and two members of team central came to her aid to carry her to each
base and later allow her to score. These are examples of what I believe games are all about and even
though the opposing teams did sacrifice points they gained more than words can describe. In the end, I
believe that proposition two is deemed to be false.
C- The players conduct is unethical
The player’s conduct is deemed to be unethical and therefor the conclusion is deemed true. The
conduct in which the player acted is inappropriate and distasteful. When walking down a busy street it
does not give you the right to tackle a slow walking pedestrian so you and others can walk at a quicker
rate. From Formalism point of view rules are put in place for a reason and those who do not abide by
such rules should have to suffer the punishment. When there is a confrontation between the Human
and Game ethics coach it is best to listen to what the angel has to say and know deep down that you or
your team are coming out on top even if the scoreboard says something different. To conclude, the
argument is deemed to be unsound.
The argument is deemed to be unsound due to the following;
P1: Was proven to be true
P2: Was proven to be false
C: Was proven to be true but due to P2 being false the argument is unsound