"Jacobs, Robert E." wrote:

> Here's an interesting example; remember the old "Black Sox"
> scandal? Some players threw the World Series away for a cash
> payoff; would financial independence be considered an acceptable
> "trade-off" to make for losing?

Need more information:  Were they doing it to...
(a) be in a better financial position to send all their kids to the best
colleges so the kids could devote their lives to performing the highest
quality work for social causes without the fear that evil people would
have the power to stop them?
(b) create a scandal to increase the "entertainment value" of an
activity that's only justified as entertainment, thereby increasing the
entertainment value of that activity for consumers and the public at
large?
(c) get more cash so they could buy bigger houses with bigger pools and
afford better booze and prostitutes?
(d) all of the above.


> Or can that "bigger prize" only be
> attained within the sphere of the sport itself? Hey, what the heck -
> the other team got to win the Series, so wasn't throwing the games at
> least a little bit altruistic? ;-)

Need more information:  Did they think the players on the winning team
would use the extra bonus money to...
(a) be in a better financial position to send all their kids to the best
colleges so the kids could devote their lives to performing the highest
quality work for social causes without the fear that evil people would
have the power to stop them?
(b) hire private coaches to increase their skill to increase the
"entertainment value" of an activity that's only justified as
entertainment, thereby increasing the entertainment value of that
activity for consumers and the public at large?
(c) get more cash so they could buy bigger houses with bigger pools and
afford better booze and prostitutes?
(d) all of the above.


> Also, does the team need a 51% "yes" majority among its players to
> throw a game? Or is this strictly a dictatorial decision to be made by
> the Solomon-esque coach?

I say the coach sets the goals, subject to being open and honest about
what the goals are when he recruits the players.


> What about the players who consider it to
> be wrong?

Presumably, that's who turned in the high school coach in Texas.  Aren't
we right back to the basic question of whether the players who deemed it
"wrong" are objectively justified in saying there can only be one
version of what's a morally permissible goal?  I say they can have their
own preference, but the standard for accusing another of being morally
wrong doesn't permit you to merely make that accusation of everyone who
chooses a different "permissible" objective.  That leads back to the
question of why the immediate game defines the only permissible and
moral objective. Why can't the season championship be an allowable and
moral objective?  I think one could morally opt to optimize the chances
of winning the season goal.


boB