Nathan, I think we agree on most things (except maybe strategy), but I'm
not sure I read you right on this one ...

I wrote:

> > Are they barred from electing the strategy that increases their chances
> of having both the series and the seasonal championship because it's
> morally unacceptable to not settle for the bird in the hand?

"Hampton, Nathan E." wrote:

> If you hire someone to break the legs of the other team's best player
> ..... hell, I wouldn't even say Tonya Harding was barred from what she
> did. But can you live with it? Are the benefits greater than the cost?
> If the gains are great enough, any cost smaller than those gains can be
> justified. No one should be barred, they should have to make a choice,
> but the choice must be made based on a clear realization of the
> consequences. Given the Texas high school coach, I'd gladly lose the

Tell me I'm wrong if I misunderstood what you meant, but I'd say Tonya's
action was clearly unjustified ("immoral") even if she was guaranteed of
gaining a greater benefit than the cost involved, even if she could live
with it, etc.  Isn't saying otherwise merely saying that you're
justified in cheating on your taxes if you correctly evaluate the IRS's
police function as being too weak to catch you (as my old boss played
the game.  He now lives in Minnesota.)  How effectively IRS operates
isn't the criteria when I know I'm taking a position that has no
justification under any interpretation.  The system is one of voluntary
compliance and I'm morally obligated to comply even if I know I can
successfully violate the rule. Tonya didn't have a moral option of
breaking the legs of someone with teeth straighter than the white picket
fence around a New England bungalow.  That was clearly an immoral
option.

boB