Principles

I am sure you have heard it many times: “It’s a matter of principle.” It’s what we say to justify a course of action that may run counter to the courses others would have us run. Often (very often?) it’s a phrase that thinly disguises the rationalization we make to support a position we take simply because we want to take it.

Consider the following:

You are the coach of a NCAA Division I football team and your conference has decided to postpone the football season because of the Carona Virus out of a concern for the players’ health. You are a coach and you make a living coaching collegiate (semi-professional) football players — many of whom want to make the pros at some point. So you tell the press that you have met with the president of the university and you and your players feel “it is a matter of principle” that your team be allowed to play the games. What you really mean is that you and your players want to play the games. But you say it is a matter of principle because it sounds more impressive. Or something.

A principle is a moral precept that we evoke to help us support difficult decisions that we are called upon to make from time to time. For example, the principle may be something like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “harming another living being is wrong.”  These can be said to be out duties, morally speaking. Usually, but not always, the word “wrong” or “right” appears in the principle somewhere. If, for example, I insist that I tell the secret police that the supposed criminal is hiding in my closet because “it is wrong to lie” I am evoking a moral precept. In this case it may conflict with another precept, “it is wrong to harm another person” — given that we know the secret police will not treat the supposed criminal kindly.  But there is a principle (often more than one) involved. In fact, conflicting principles are what make ethics such a confounding arena of thought.

In the case of the football team there is no moral precept whatever. Unless we maintain that is is wrong to deny the players an opportunity to play football — which is doubtful since they are presumably students at a university where education is what matters most (right!).  Thus when the coach says it is a matter or principle that the players be allowed to play he is fabricating things. What he means, of course, is that he and his players want to play and they are being denied that opportunity by the conference they play in.

Rationalization is commonplace. We conjure up a bogus argument — or a “moral precept” which we may even make up — and use that to shore up a weak argument to persuade others that what we want to do is the right thing to do.

But, as George Eliot has reminded us, duties are not chosen. They choose us. And the right thing to do is almost always a matter of duty and as such frequently (always?) conflicts with what we want to do — unless we are saints. So, in this case, the supposed moral precept that it is wrong to deny football players the opportunity to play the game they love is a weak attempt to persuade others (and ourselves, perhaps?) that what we want to do is the right thing to do. It is our duty.

Fiddlesticks! It is simply what we want to do and that’s the end to it. It is certainly not a matter or principle.

5 thoughts on “Principles

  1. Hugh, well said. Those $$$ have a lot to do with it, as well. It would have been better to say, Americans need some distraction in this time of concern. What can we do to safely deliver that? While the basketball men and women pros are at risk, they came to a solution that is working for them and their TV and streaming fans – quarantined players and games. Conversely, major league baseball ran too much risk and it resulted in greater exposure and cases.

    Keith

    • Colllegiate football seems headed for the same pitfalls the baseball players fell into. The coaches and players — almost 50% of them — refuse to pay any attention to the protocols!

      • Hugh, what frustrates is coaches must look after the players. They told the mothers (and fathers), they would look after their sons (and daughters). Being cavalier with health protocols is not as jaw dropping as covering up for sexual misconduct and pedophiles at Penn State, Michigan State and Ohio State, but it is still a dereliction of duty. Keith

  2. It is not surprising when groups of people/teams/individuals decide to do what they want. Unfortunately, this is the society we are currently living in. Rarely do people consider what is the moral thing to do when anyone can decide what truth he/she wants to live by and espouse. This is a topic I often discuss with my kids as we strive towards what is good, beautiful, and true. Would you say this is the dilemma with moral relativism?

    • I would say it is an inevitable outcome of a rampant moral relativism. You are spot on: it’s all about what we want to do, not what we all ought to do! I know you and yours are headed in the right direction. I have no doubts whatever!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s