Hmmmm. So, let’s say you are a Dodgers fan. Let’s say that in preparation for the World Series the Astros essentially find a way to subvert some rule or tradition or convention. That policy, that action will give their team and the American League an advantage against the National League, whose teams have not planned to subvert this particular rule, tradition or convention. Dodgers management and legal reviews their opponents and the league’s gambit in advance of the playoffs and find that the MLB and the AL are in fact purposeful in this stretching of norms.
Wouldn’t there be outrage here in the City of Angels if the Dodgers failed to act and represent for their league and their home town and their fans because they did not embrace the low — yet legal, and “sanctioned” — behavior that the league and the opponents had sunk to?
Or would it be nobler, less outrageous, to admit that ethical fair play had already been subordinated to the barest legality and that sticking to ethical principles was better … and then with their principled and ethical bat and mitts decide not to play on the stilted playing field … and aforehand the Dodgers absorb the certainty of a World Series defeat and the opponent’s “won in four” massacre?
And what does that reduction say about the league and the game itself? You cannot walk away from the truth of it and still be called a contender or even a participant.
Walking the ethical path is harder. One must consider the stakes when deciding among the choices to maintain norms or adjusting to accommodate norms that have changed. To paraphrase a quote from the world of risk evaluation: “When conditions change I change my mind. What do you do?”
Of course, you would expect opponents who promote low ethical standards to encourage your principled behavior, especially if it ensures your undoing.
I’d like to point out that even among criminals there are ethical codes that — though unwritten — will get you a good beating if you cross the Rubicon.
Go Blue. Go get ’em.
Christopher Lucero
Saugus
