Originally Posted by G1911
I don't agree. I think that retroactively enforcing arbitrary rules, or new rules and applying them to the past is unfair, but something that just elementary common sense or a single iota of awareness should tell someone is now and was then wrong, it doesn't much matter if there was a formal rule or not. If you are participating in the fixing of the biggest event in sports, whether it's taking payoffs (Jackson), trying to lose (Gandil, Cicotte, Williams and others) or ignoring or covering it up (Weaver), you should be aware that you may face punishment if caught, even if you manage to hide behind "well, no rule says...". It is basic common sense, and it is the case in every single other job in the world. If I am guilty of gross misconduct at my job, openly operating against the fundamental interests of my employer, guess who is getting fired regardless of whether or not there is some technical rule I broke? Common sense IS a general rule we apply every single day in most aspects of our lives.
From a philosophical standpoint, YES intent and context matter. Because rigging games makes Reds fans happy is not a good reason to dismiss rigging games. Philosophy is not about "how many people does this make happy?" but about what is right and wrong and the proper way to happiness. Let's use the Socratic argument of analogy to show the absurdity of the standard here. Murder makes the serial killer happy and the victim unhappy, while the victim getting away makes the victim happy and the serial killer unhappy. No rational moral philosophy says "some people like it and some don't, it's all the same then".
If you think the Astros should be banned for life, based on common sense, even though they did not commit an offense that is specifically bannable for life in the agreed upon rules, then why is the same not true for the Black Sox? You want to use a "common sense" standard (even though not many would say anyone who cheats to win should be banned for life) for the Astros, but argue it must be ignored for the White Sox. That is not reasonable. I think the Astros got off way too light and should have been actually punished, but what they did not is not as bad as rigging a World Series for a group gamblers. By no means.
I do not know how Comiskey "was involved in all of this" and should have been the first one banned. What games did he rig? What payoffs did he take from illegal gamblers and gangsters? If I have missed some evidence that Comiskey was the mastermind behind the rigging of the series and played everybody, I would love to see it. I presume we actually mean that the charge that Comiskey was cheap is true and justifies the rigging of games. If Jackson's $6,000 was not enough for him (reading his testimony, there's a place where he seems to say Comiskey's pay to him was actually fairly generous), he can quit his job. If I rigged a deal my company was working on because I think I am not paid enough, and threw it to a competitor who gave me a payoff, and I was caught, do you think that I would not be banned from ever working with my employers organization ever again? Obviously I would be fired immediately and never hired again, at best (and may well end up in court). Would it be okay philosophically for me to do this? No, if I think my employment situation is no longer profitable enough (obviously I did at one point, when I signed on the line), I quit my job.
Greenies were not a big deal in 1964. Retroactively punishing players is a bit weird for that. The rigging of the World Series was a gigantic deal in 1920, punishing the Black Sox was not enforcing some new standard onto the past. Nobody in 1920 considered this proper conduct. Taking money from someone to do a job, and then taking money from someone else to not do a job (Jackson) or covering that up (Weaver) has never been an acceptable, consequence-free action in the western world. I'm fairly confident there even WERE rules against rigging games. Actions have consequences, and those consequences are fair when context and a shred of common sense tell you what the consequence will be when you commit the action. Actively trying to screw your employer gets you fired. A reasonable argument can be made that Weaver should not have been banned, but this is not it.
|