Lance morality: part two
So yesterday’s point was about whether a larger good deed can justify a bad one.
Today we look at artificial enhancement.
Which of these is fair?
1. An ageing actor has plastic surgery and wins parts that might have gone to other actors.
2. A cyclists injects himself with steroids when pretty much everyone else is doing it. The work is still hard, but if he didn’t take the steroids he would be miles behind.
3. A bodybuilder wants to enter shows but he doesn’t want to take drugs. Unfortunately, no one watches non-steroid bodybuilding shows.
4. The son of a footballer is found to have certain genetic advantages that end up helping him to captain his country.
5. A girl goes through public school where she is given top quality training and equipment to become one of the world’s best archers.
6. A boy has nice, encouraging parents who sacrifice everything to help him become the greatest chef in the country.
7. The parents of a five-year-old girl tell her she is nothing. She is then beaten and humiliated for the rest of her childhood. She turns this experience into the drive that makes her an Oscar-winning actor.
8. A man is an average athlete. He is in a car crash which leaves him with no legs. He becomes a gold medal Paralympian.
9. A small child is looking through an old wardrobe. He happens to find a copy of Harry Potter. This inspires a massive love of reading and storytelling that makes him a best-selling author.
‘All advantages are unfair’ – Dave Trott.
Ben – “It may well be that creativity is the last unfair advantage we’re legally allowed to take over our competitors.” – Bill Bernbach
What about ethics or is that just some county north east of London?
What about massive media spend?
What if you haven’t got a massive media spend?
Make a brilliant product.
“So yesterday’s point was about whether a larger good deed can justify a bad one.”
the point is, ben, that i would challenge the idea that armstrong’s charity had been a larger good deed than his cheating had been a bad one.
also, i don’t think i’d like to keep the influence armstrong has had on the public and specific people out of the picture. another morally bankrupt zombie who doesn’t give a shit whether he’s ruining the lives of other people.
nb all disadvantages are unfair as well.
“May the best man win.”
But if he’s the best man he has an advantage doesn’t he?
A very good point.
Where does that leave the idea of levelling the playing field?
Where it belongs, in the list of rather glib but meaningless phrases.
This post, I fear, is total and utter bollocks.
Hitchcock was once asked if there was any such thing as the perfect murder.
He said it happened all the time, what made it perfect was that no one knew.
It’s like that with cheating.
The minute you get found out you’re just a cheat.
Different people (and different countries) have different definitions of cheating.
Maradonna famously saw the hand of God as ‘cunning’.
But apart from the cyclist scenario, none of the other advantages you list are gained illegally.
So?
It is because things are unfair that we have rules.
Breaking the rules is what is frowned upon. Not the advantage. The rules could be seen as the laws of a sport, or ethics.
Following these rules is what makes us a society.
Beyond that, we should respect the advantages others have over us. Admire those who can do things we cannot. There’s an honour in being second best if it’s the case.
“All advantages are unfair.” while clever, just sounds massively grasping and Thatcherite to me.
So we’re talking about morality. The cyclist in your scenario is governed by the rules of a sport that he chose to abide by. The advantage he uses is outside of those rules. Just sayin, that’s different to everyone else in your list who are just making the best out of the cards dealt to them.
Only number 2 is cheating. Because there is a rule in cycling about doping. Even if everyone else is doing it. Whose Mum did not say – “If Johnny put his head in the oven would you?”
Well it appears that you probably would as Milgram et all proved. Most behave in accordance to your environment. And in accordance to the authority around you.
The system of reward encourages cheating.
Sport is often used as a metaphor for business and even life, because it is so useful to have that comparison, goals, work hard, commitment training etc. However, the difference between life and sport is immense, life being pretty complicated and at times seems very unfair.
The problem with breaking the rules / cheating is that trust evaporates be it in business, life or sport. Who trust big business, politicians, religions, sportsman, advertising or even themselves these days?
So the cyclist is the only one lying about it?
Dave – the best man’s advantage is that he’s the best. Seeking an advantage that’s outside of the rules isn’t being the best, it’s playing a completely different game. Maybe in life those rules aren’t necessarily defined. But in sport it’s black and white.
But people are given ‘advantages’ that others don’t have, and often people don’t even know what they are until they’ve become champions.
I haven’t asked if any of them are moral or right or legal. I asked if they were fair.
Anyone got an answer for that?
Life’s not fair.
But occasionally, we try to make it so. Which is honourable, imo.
Fair is mostly subjective depending on which side of the fence you’re standing or your view of the situation. I’d say that most of the scenarios you mention are neither fair nor unfair, they just are. Apart from the cyclist who benefited from breaking the rules. That’s unfair.
I know you haven’t asked those questions but fair needs to be in some context. Context is everything. Else we re stuck trying to define ‘fair’ i.e. is something ‘just’. Like wise defining ‘best’.
Is it fair that I was fortunate to be born in England rather than say starving in Ethiopia etc? Maybe not, but the question doesn’t solve much.
But what relevance does that have to L.A.? Was L.A. being fair? I think not, some say he had no choice.I think you always have choice. Are there reason why he cheated? Yes there are. There are actually less clean TdF winners than dopers. And you may be right to doubt some of them too. Doping in cycling was systematic.
Rules in sport aren’t about society’s laws. They are their to create a sport, to attempt a level playing field. Nothing to do with illegality as such. It’s easier talk about fairness in sport than in the lottery of life.
Actually, thinking about this further, I don’t think fair and unfair can be separated from morals in the way you’re suggesting. Without a moral yardstick, you can’t define what’s fair or not.
‘Fair’ is relative. Utterly subjective. It’s what kids say to their parents. There is a list of facts here. How you feel about them is up to you.
It bothers me less that Lance Armstrong took drugs, more that he ruined other people’s lives and livelihoods by intimidation, bullying and wearing that smug, self-righteous, punchable face all the time.
Is running 100m in £100 spikes vs someone in £3000 spiked shoes fair? Legally yes it is, but probably carries the same fairness as someone in £3000 spikes vs someone on roids in £100 spikes. No?
levelling the playing field. this is what laws and regulations are made for.
of course, e.g. bankers who know how to influence the right, i.e. wrong, people don’t seem to care much about levelling the playing field. creating themselves some advantages is more appealing. too bad they’re carelessly ruining life for anyone else. it is a nice little mindset. get yourself some power and abuse it. it makes people do all kinds of abhorrent things. like investing in bank products that make people starve because prices go through the roof or make them kill themselves because they lost their jobs in ‘economic’ turmoil. i could go on. nobody has to die in these stories. suffering can be painful enough. one would call this indifference towards others psychopathic or sociopathic. it is everywhere. it is stupid, too, since the longer term effects will bite us (the bankers too) in the arse. it is the stupid kind of egoism. it is destructive. it is not any healthy form of competition, it is barbaric. welcome to the stone age.
ps: http://youtu.be/tlTr2GSVUGg
as for fairness. i prefer the ‘veil of ignorance’. fairness can’t stand there on its own without any context and definition.
the universal declaration of human rights is a jolly good piece of fiction, too.
Oaky,
Totally take your point about the difference.
In sport, IMHO, the creative thing is to think your way round the rules, bending them in ways no one else thought of but never quite breaking them.
My problem with Armstrong is that he wasn’t creative or clever.
I think it’s an interesting question with some fascinating answers. I also think that comment 10 is utter bollocks.
‘Let the best man win’ is actually a wonderful principle.
Imagine how good life would be if we all followed it to the letter.
Who would be worse off? Nobody. Even the worst man would live in a fantastic society.
Ben, I have an Armstrong-related question if you’re interested. Is the inspiration people took from his book any less valid now the world knows it’s a lie?
The only thing that matters is results in real life. If the original book or the resultant indignation has the desired effect then job done.
If it works, it’s valid.
“Unfairness exists, so it’s best not to consider making things fairer” – shorter Ben.
It’s a 6th form common room, how exciting!
I’m not sure you’d enjoy Lincoln, he had some dangerous views…Sic semper tyrannis!
BTW I cannot see any artificial enhancement in the fourth example you give.
@Jim – I hope you’re not a copywriter.
I came from a working class family, was the first person to go to uni, worked all the way through college to fund watford, scratched around on the dole while doing placements, got a job, got let go, got a better job, won some awards, worked my tits off and am now a group head at a good agency doing good work.
Would I have swapped the experience to have had a Dad who was an ECD who could’ve given me a handout then rung up his mates and got me some placements at the best places in town, while paying the rent on my trendy east london loft apartment?
Fucking right I would.
“Advantage” is just the way of the world. Take what you can get, try not to be jealous of anyone else who gets a legup (unless they’re cheats/cunts) and when the time comes prepare/help your own kids to get on in their chosen field.
Ask around, you’ll be surprised how many of your ECDs/MDs/CEOs haven’t got their job in advertising solely on merit…
If everything was fair and equal everyone would come first and there would be no point having competition.
@ 34. Congrats, you’ve missed the point by a country mile.
Thanks for that @36.
This is an interesting article- by a bike rider who feels he might have struggled to resist drugs if he was in La’s shoes:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/a-former-cyclist-reflects-i-would-have-done-what-lance-armstrong-did/267361/
The first person to go to uni?
Fuck.
In many ways scam work is the fairest iteration of what we do – we can all pick a client and do whatever work we want without a brief, and without a budget as everything is done on favours. The only thing you need is an idea and the energy to make it happen. There’s no luck involved. It doesn’t matter what agency you work at or what the client’s mood is like.
What is the obsession with fair… Humans aren’t born equal and if they were the world simply wouldn’t work.
Everybody strives for an advantage because our society is fuelled by greed.
All we can do is what feels right inside and fight to achieve what we want as honourably as possible and upon reaching the summit, you have to be comfortable with the sum of parts you have become along the way.
And that is life.
@36 Woe is me, not raining on your parade, but surely, even in your story and despite all the work you put in, there had been luck involved.
—
hard work, talent etc. do not have to pay off (it still depends on the circumstances or ‘luck’). the american dream. it is this fair-y tale we keep hanging on to. it makes everyone who ‘made it’ look like a hero. whether they are or not. ‘history is written by the victors’ – churchill. so let’s tell the tale. but unfortunately – and this is my experience -, people who made a career to the upper levels in a hierarchy can be the most incompetent assholes to walk the earth. so can be those who were born into it. note that i wrote “can”. there surely are some smart people. but also really dumb ones and imposters. a’s hire a’s etc. speaks volumes about the priotrities and incompetence of those who opened the door for them, the modus operandi, systemic errors, politics… anyway, let’s not get too carried away here …
—
to speak of jealousy when some cunts are ruining it, is quite an ego-centric view.
i’d describe it more as feelings of anger and utter disdain. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
“egoism is the perspective law of our sentiment, according to which the near appears large and momentous, while in the distance the magnitude and importance of all things diminish.” – nietzsche
@WTF starting a charity any time soon i suppose
Maybe the point of my rambling drivel wasn’t clear.
I’m all for luck and advantage.
And yes, Peggy, of course we all encounter luck every day, if you want to deconstruct it – lucky when the account man who has to sell our work in isn’t a fucking retard; lucky when you swerve a dogshit brief and get a good ‘un; lucky when you have a go on the PA with the massive norks ‘cos she’s had one too many goes on the penis-shaped vodka luge at the Xmas party.
I’m actually saying that luck is unavoidable and part life. Equally, so is working like a cunt and being fucking brilliant at writing ads. Take what you can get and exploit what you’ve got.
I think a lot of life is figuring out what you’re prepared to put up with. and developing severe allergies to the stuff you’re not prepared to deal with.
The only two examples that are unfair are 1 and 2.
The rest involve protagonists who have no control over their circumstances and therefore can’t really be held responsible for any advantages they have.
1 and 2 manipulate their circumstances in order to gain an advantage.
Whether they’re right or not is something else, but that’s how I’d define fair.
Everyone has control over their circumstances. Even the footballer with the genes is happy to use that advantage. He could have refused and chosen a different career.
But your comment is another completely valid opinion regarding this interesting question.
Hadn’t thought about it like that regarding someone’s reaction to their circumstances, but the distinction of responsibility over how they came by their advantage I think still holds up.
‘Gifted’ to them by luck/upbringing/genetics etc or ‘upgraded’ by them using connections/training/drugs etc.
Again, not making the distinction between right and wrong, just fair and unfair.
Woe is me, i just wanted to make a point, or several, and shamelessly exploited your comment. doing it again, ha.
—
i’m all for realizing that luck and dis-/advantage are variables that determine life. if i do that, i see that people don’t deserve what they get dealt. whether it’s good or bad things. do i like that people get dealt bad things in life. — no. do i get mad when people made themselves responsible for the suffering of others because they thought they could just do what they like – not having a second thought about consequences. worse, thinking about it, but deciding to not give a shit. — yes.
it is neccessary for the survival and development of our species to think about the consequences of our actions and act accordingly. as simple as that. and difficult enough. since there’s not that much easy interest to be earned there, i guess we’re fucked. it’s pathetic.
—
i heard some drops of ghb can speed up luck.
(i know you didn’t mean it that way, but i just couldn’t resist. i’m funny like that.)
—
ben, in general. i really don’t think everyone has control over their circumstances. people can and should have control over themselves. but get influenced and shaped by the outer world. the higehr up you’re in a hierarchy, the more control you have over the outer world, i.e. your own circumstances and that of others. “with great power comes great responsibility” etc
Peggy, you can have complete control over everything you do.
You just think you can’t.
It’s all words, innit?
I hate Lance for being a cheat (although I’m pleased that my kids have witnessed his downfall).
But if I ever get cancer, I hope I cheat it.
ben, i wrote that people can and should have control over themselves. no disagreement there.
Let Brad have the last word.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/cycling-bradley-wiggins-lance-armstrong-is-a-lying-bastard-8466325.html