Match-Fixing: Working Towards an Ethical Framework
Metadata
- Author: Andy Harvey
- Full Title: Match-Fixing: Working Towards an Ethical Framework
- Category:articles
- Published Date: 2015-09-23
- Document Note: The document entitled “Match-Fixing: Working Towards an Ethical Framework” can help with research regarding the agents responsible in match-fixing by providing insights and ethical frameworks related to match-fixing. The author discusses different forms of match-fixing and seeks to comprehend these scenarios within Kantian, Hegelian, and contractualist ethical frameworks. The paper offers a new domain by sketching out an ethical framework to underpin arguments against match-fixing in sport. The three ethical approaches that are discussed can be viewed as complementary, rather than in opposition to each other, with the Kantian and contractualist positions focusing on the self supporting the reworked Hegelian emphasis on the ‘other’. The document explores philosophical approaches to match-fixing in sport and proposes ethical frameworks to address the issue. However, it does not provide specific recommendations. Based on the information provided, it appears that the result of the paper entitled “Match-Fixing: Working Towards an Ethical Framework” is a philosophical exploration of the ethics of match-fixing in sports and how it undermines the fundamental purpose of sports, which is to test and determine relative abilities. The author argues that developing an ethical opposition to match-fixing in sports can give much greater substance to popular phrases such as ‘respect for the game’, encompassing the value of sport itself and respect for other players, fans, sponsors, and organizers. The paper also discusses various philosophical approaches to cheating in sports, including formalism and ethos, and how they relate to match-fixing. The document entitled “Match-Fixing: Working Towards an Ethical Framework” does not mention a specific methodology being used. Instead, it discusses various philosophical approaches to cheating in sports and examines the ethical implications of match-fixing. It argues that match-fixing undermines the fundamental purpose of sports, which is to test and determine relative abilities through fair competition. The objective of the paper is to develop an ethical framework for opposing match-fixing in sports. The article discusses match-fixing in sports and proposes an ethical framework to oppose it. The author argues that match-fixing undermines the value of sport and shows a lack of respect for other players, fans, sponsors, and organizers. The article explores different ethical approaches to cheating in sport, such as formalism and ethos, and suggests that fair play and respect for the game are crucial in evaluating match-fixing. The article concludes that developing an ethical opposition to match-fixing in sport can give greater substance to popular phrases such as ‘respect for the game.‘
- URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/96071259
Highlights
- In this article, I outline the different forms that match-fixing can take and seek to comprehend these disparate scenarios within Kan- tian, Hegelian and contractualist ethical frameworks. I tentatively suggest that, by developing an ethical opposition to match-fixing in sport, we can give much greater substance to popular phrases such as ‘respect for the game’, encompassing the value of sport itself and respect for other players, fans, sponsors and organisers. (View Highlight)
- Philosophical approaches to cheating in sport have fallen broadly into two camps, formalism and ethos, with occasional attempts made to bridge the divide. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a full treatment of the literature on cheating in sport, but it is helpful to briefly stake out the terrain in order to contextualise the debate over match-fixing. Simply put, the formal- ist position holds that games are rule-governed practices and competitors agree to abide by the rules when playing the game. In order to avoid the non- sensical position where every breach of a rule automatically voids a game, for example if a footballer deliberately trips another player, most formalists make the well-known Kantian distinction between constitutive rules and regulative rules.9 In essence, the constitutive rules are the game and a deliberate failure to abide by the constitutive rules voids the game altogether and a player cannot be said to have won a game in which she or he failed to abide by a constitutive rule as they have not been playing the game at all.10 One of the best known examples of breaching a constitutive rule is the case of Boris Onischenko, the Russian pentathlete, who cheated in the 1976 Summer Olympics by tampering with his e´pe´e sword so that he could make it go off without actually hitting his opponent.11 (View Highlight)
- How might we think of the injunction to compete, or in other words, not to match-fix, in more formal ethical terms? In the remainder of this article, I suggest that Kantian imperative duties, Rawlsian/Scanlonian contractualism and Hegelian recognition all offer possible ways to analyse match-fixing from an ethical perspective. To take the Kantian categorical imperative first and the formula of the universal law and the formula of the end in itself. Following Bailey and Martin, a number of questions need to be posed in order to determine whether an action is a categorical imperative. (View Highlight)
- Note: In Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative is a fundamental principle of morality put forth by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his ethical theory. It serves as a guiding principle for determining the moral worth of an action. Kant presents several formulations of the categorical imperative, but one of the most well-known is expressed as follows: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This formulation emphasizes the concept of universalizability. Kant argues that an action is morally permissible if its underlying principle or maxim could be consistently applied as a universal law without contradiction. In other words, individuals should act according to principles that could be universally accepted without leading to logical contradictions when applied by everyone. For example, if someone is considering lying to achieve a personal gain, they should evaluate whether they can will that everyone, in similar circumstances, should also lie. If universalizing the maxim of lying leads to a contradiction (such as undermining the trust necessary for communication), then, according to the categorical imperative, lying is morally impermissible. Kantian ethics places a strong emphasis on the inherent value of rationality, autonomy, and the idea that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. The categorical imperative is meant to provide a rational and consistent foundation for moral decision-making based on these principles.