Okay, so I have been going over in my head: What to do about the Redskin’s name controversy. For those who don’t know, some people are claiming that the mascot / name of the Washington Redskins is derogatory toward Native Americans. Those people suggest that the name should be changed. I tend to be one of them. However, I’m trying to figure out, from the philosophical point of view, what is the correct thing to do. But as Aristotle said with regard to ethics: “We must not expect more precision than the subject-matter admits”. So I thought it would be fun to have a little game of normative ethical football. Andy, I’m including you on this because you love philosophy and I’m pretty sure you remember how football works and that there is a team known as the Washington Redskins. The teams will be the Namekeepers and the Namechangers. So lets begin. 1st Quarter. First we need to evaluate the the accused agents. I think we can neither accuse Dan Snyder (Team Owner), nor any of the Namekeepers of intent to be disparaging. Sure, there are racists among the ranks, but I’m sure we could all agree that they are insignificant in numbers. TOUCHDOWN for the Namekeepers. Since we can avert intent, then motive becomes of little consequence, so TWO POINT CONVERSION is good. 8-0 Namekeepers. We do, however, need to evaluate gross negligence or willful ignorance. For instance, if I was waving a gun around haphazardly, and shot someone, that could be considered negligence, or if I left my guns out instead of in a safe after reading literature that statistically showed the increase in danger I pose to my children, but dismissed the evidence, that would be willful ignorance. Both are matters of ethics. Though doesn’t seem to be any evidence for negligence, I believe there is a case for willful ignorance. Despite Dan Snyder repeatedly being confronted by Native Americans [1], he has been cited dismissing these individuals [2]. (references at the bottom) Though the Namechangers could also be considered ignorant by dismissing some of the statistics about percentage of Native Americans that find the name offensive, but I’m not sure that the numbers matter, at least not when evaluating the agents. Either way, the evidence isn’t strong, so let’s just say FIELD GOAL for the Namechangers. 8-3 Namekeepers. This brings us to our next point. Character. If we use Aristotelian virtue ethics as our guide, we can break this down into Aristotle’s motives for ethical action: Pleasure, Honor and Contemplation. Though I’m sure that some of the Namechangers are only seeking pleasure in making the Namekeepers mad, and some of the Namekeepers consider “Redskins” to be an issue of pride, and therefore, honor, I think we can say that, in general terms, that defending oneself against bigotry is an issue of Honor, while keeping the name of your football team to be an issue of pleasure. Since Honor > Pleasure, this is a pretty strong argument for the Namechangers, but it is still just virtue ethics which usually fails the meta-ethical problem, so another FIELD GOAL. 8-6 Namekeepers. HALFTIME. Things always get more intense in the second half, and the Namechangers need to start converting those field goals into touchdowns if they want to win. Before the second half, though, lets see what the Moral Relativists have to say. Apparently, one says that the nachos are stale, while the other agrees, but thinks they are not stale. Or something. Moving on. In the second half, lets look at the action itself. This is where it gets interesting. First lets evaluate Kantian categorical imperatives. Particularly, with regard to universalizing the maxim. If everyone were to go around using disparaging remarks, even without intent to be derogatory, this would be less desirable than if everyone were to attempt to change their vernacular to be most respectful of one another. This is as long as everyone were sincere in what they truly thought to be of disrespect and worthy of correction. TOUCHDOWN Namechangers, but they miss the extra point because recognizing sincerity is difficult. 8-12 Namechangers What about Hobbesian Social Contract Theory? Certainly by not changing the name in exchange for civility, one would enter a state of Warre (sic), and not Peace. Though if the NFL represents the “state”, then one must acquiesce. Tough, but FEILD GOAL Namechangers. 8-15 Namechangers. Two scores in a row. Not looking good for the Namekeepers. Lets now look at Locke’s Natural Rights. It’s Dan Snyders team, he can name it what he wants, but INTERCEPTION, the US patent office just removed the patent, and now he does not own the name. That’s a tough one, because that was a surefire touchdown. The quarterback really needs to get it together. Okay, so lets look at Locke’s sense of Divine Command. Well, everyone knows that God’s favorite team is the Cowboys, so it’s not looking good for the Namekeepers, but it looks like God is abstaining from this one. Whew. They nearly allowed the Namechangers to complete a “Hail Mary” (badump cha) 4th quarter. Namekeepers are down by 7. Lets look at consequences. Bentham’s Utilitarianism view of Consequentialism would Certainly suggest that the most harm would come to the Namekeepers if the name were changed. Though Dan Snyder might stand to make more money, it would only be on the backs of those fans, who are mostly Namekeepers as they would be spending more money to replace jerseys and hats and the like in an attempt to stay relevant. This is more damaging than the alternative action would be for the Namechangers, who are less in numbers anyway. TOUCHDOWN Namekeepers. 15-15. Tie game. Not much time left on the clock. Ethical Egoism. Dan Snyder gets to do what he sees are in his best interest. Quick strike down field. TOUCHDOWN Namekeepers. No time left on the clock. Namekeepers Win. 22-15. It was a tough fought battle, but in the end, did the best team win? Wait the Moral nihilists are chiming in: “None of this matters. There is no such thing as normative ethical football.” Back to you Daniel. With Andy Stager, Daniel Wells, Kirk Irwin. (1) news.google/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19920127&id=iTMaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ACYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5240,6002498 (2) washingtonpost/local/letter-from-washington-redskins-owner-dan-snyder-to-fans/2013/10/09/e7670ba0-30fe-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:29:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015