Is lying in baseball a virtue?

Greg’s observation several posts up covers a lot of ground

There are situations in life, though, that do require judgment calls- to act one way in one situation is acceptable, in another not. To recognize that there are some times where a sort of “situational ethics” applies does not mean that all sense of absolutes need be discarded.

There’s been some confusion among Bible-believers ever since Joseph Fletcher published Situation Ethics in the 1960’s. The title is somewhat misleading, and reactions against Fletcher have often resulted in upholding ethics that ignore the “situation.” For what it’s worth, Fletcher taught that loving intentions justify basically everything. If you act with the intention of helping somebody (“love”), the act is morallly right. It should have been titled “Good Intention Ethics” or “Love Ethics” or something.

It doesn’t work to ignore situations when trying to identify right vs. wrong, because the context of an act is a huge, huge factor in it’s rightness or wrongness.

• Yelling “fire” at a shooting range, vs. yelling “fire” in a crowded theater… when there’s no fire.
• Giving morphine to a dying person in agony vs. giving morphine to an addict
• Whacking somebody on the back when he’s choking vs. whacking someone on the back to get him out of your way
• Wearing muddy boots in the barn vs. wearing muddy boots in the living room

So with all of these you could try to establish an ‘absolute’ that says “It’s always wrong to yell fire” or always wrong to give someone morphine or wear muddy boots, etc. But there’s not really any way to do that. The situation is decisive.

When it comes the role of situations, there are more options than many realize:

• The situation always determines right/wrong
• The situation never determines right/wrong
• The situation sometimes determines right/wrong

We don’t have to choose between the first two.

I’m out of time to gather the details right now, but there a NT term meaning something like “appropriate” or “fitting for the situation.” And the NT holds this up as a positive thing. (If I’m not mistaken OT has a similar concept in Proverbs etc.)

Aaron,

I agree that context impacts decision making. however, I reject the idea the context is the final arbiter. As Christians, we still live by principle - universal, timeless, authoritative principle. The problem is that sometimes we are to simplistic or imprecise in our articulation of principles.

Chip, context determines how can we define something as right or wrong, Aaron is saying. Shooting someone is defined as either murder or self-defense depending on the context. Murder is always wrong, but what is murder is determined by the context/situation.

there is a legitimate question as to whether committing a foul intentionally is rebelling against authority in the same way intentionally speeding might be.

Is this really a legitimate question? The fact that someone can ask it does not grant it legitimacy. Legitimacy occurs when there is a reasonable argument that then must be answered. But the argument has to be made first.

Until someone shows reasonably that basketball rules administered by an official in the course of an athletic contest and civil laws administered by sworn officials in a legal system are similar, then there is no basis to declare this a legitimate question. And I doubt that argument could even be started, much less concluded. This is the type of moral equivocation I was talking about. These things have nothing in common. To equate the officials in a basketball game with sworn public officials, and the rules of a game with civil law, is a huge stretch, at best.

Regardless of whether you agree or not, there are some good arguments either way and I think it is a bit much to dogmatically dismiss the other side as you seem to have done.

If such an argument can be made, then someone needs to make it. But so far, I haven’t seen it. There has simply been equivocation, as in this is like defaulting on credit cards, or the same mentality that leads to pornography. Those are not arguments. Show me that fouling in the course of a basketball is an unbiblical defiance of authority.

There are all kinds of reasons to foul someone that have no connection to defiance of authority, including the fact that they are less likely to make two free throws than a layup. Or for the sake of time. Or some other reason. There is nothing sinful or against the rules about that. It’s part of the game, and part of the rules, and it is defined a specific way in the rulebook. We are, in every game or sport, permitted to take advantage of the rules. We do it in other areas of life as well. The rules define it as a legitimate basketball play for which outcomes are anticipated. It is living by the rules of the game. I continue to fail to see the problem here, and no one seems to be willing to take a stab at explaining it.

I am not going to prolong this any more. I think the bigger issues here are the way people go about arguing things. Moral equivocation is a serious error because it misleads people about the true nature of biblical living and submission to authority. And that’s why I think it needs more thought than is being given here.

[Larry] There are all kinds of reasons to foul someone that have no connection to defiance of authority, including the fact that they are less likely to make two free throws than a layup. Or for the sake of time. Or some other reason. There is nothing sinful or against the rules about that. It’s part of the game, and part of the rules, and it is defined a specific way in the rulebook.

Chip, My point is that you actually have to argue for that. You can’t simply assert that “it’s not really different in kind, only in degree” and then consider the argument over. You actually have to show that they are similar in some way. You have to make an argument that the rules of basketball are an authority ordained by God.

As I pointed out, the rules of a game are not the same as civil laws; the officials are not the same as sworn officers. There is no reason that I know of to consider them the same in kind.

Larry, I did argue for it waaaaay back up the thread. The principles are the same: obey the governing authorities in your life, whether that be civil government, employer, or referee.

Chip, I don’t have a lot of time to continue this so I will say this and then try to back away from the table here.

I just went back and quickly reread, and it confirmed my impression that there was no actual argument made showing how they are the same. There were just assertions and equivocations along the lines of “They are the same kind, just different degrees,” which is not itself an argument. And equivocations of every thing from defaulting on credit card debt to internet pornography to premarital sex. Which is perhaps like equating a nice day at the beach with a housefire. After, it’s the same kind of heat, just different degrees, right? But we all acknowledge that the difference of degrees is pretty significant. It’s no minor deal. Some heat is acceptable and some is not. The beach sun and housefire have a different source and a different effect. And that is a clear difference between the rules of a game and the laws of a civil society.

As I said, I am not sure such an argument could even be begun, much less sustained, but I will certainly be willing to consider it, if it is made.

Analogies are rarely perfect, and this one won’t be, but if you want to use a credit card analogy, late payments or partial payments is more similar to this. A payment “must be made” by such and such a date. If you don’t, there is a penalty to pay. In some cases, people judge is better to pay the penalty and make the late payment or carry over the balance.

On the issue of moral relativity that you have raised a few times, first, there is moral relativity in some sense, as revealed by the Law of Moses, inspired by God. Killing a person and killing an animal receive two different penalties because in relation to each other, they are not morally equivalent; they are relative. But would something like the rules of basketball even make into that discussion?

Before we get there, we would have to have some sort of argument made that fouling in a basketball is a moral issue to begin with. And we haven’t even gotten there yet, aside from naked assertions.

So why is a basketball game, and strategic fouling a moral issue? By what definition is it a sinful defiance of biblical authority?

Thanks for the exchange. I need to move on here (I hope).

[Larry]

Analogies are rarely perfect, and this one won’t be, but if you want to use a credit card analogy, late payments or partial payments is more similar to this. A payment “must be made” by such and such a date. If you don’t, there is a penalty to pay. In some cases, people judge is better to pay the penalty and make the late payment or carry over the balance.

Well Chip, there is no answer without more context. Someone who carries over a balance buying big screen TVs and eating out every night is different than someone who carries a balance because they are unemployed and buying groceries and gas. And both of those are different than someone who forgets to make a payment. Not all of it is sin, and none of it might be, but all of it involves a use of a card that is permissible so long as one is willing to pay the price for it. Again, all analogies break down.

But this conversation is all premature. Again, until you show that the rules of a game (basketball) are equivalent to the law of God and an authority ordained by God, we have no foundation on which to discuss this particularly issue. Someone can’t be defying an authority from God until there is an authority from God. Furthermore, said authority has expectations, and by agreeing to the authority, you agree to the expectations. So if the authority expects the fouling to take place, then it is not defying the authority for it to happen. It is not wrong to do what the authority expects you to do.

So in the end, you have yet to show that this is a moral issue. You’ve skipped right past the most important part.

[Larry]

Well Chip, there is no answer without more context. Someone who carries over a balance buying big screen TVs and eating out every night is different than someone who carries a balance because they are unemployed and buying groceries and gas. And both of those are different than someone who forgets to make a payment. Not all of it is sin, and none of it might be, but all of it involves a use of a card that is permissible so long as one is willing to pay the price for it. Again, all analogies break down.

But this conversation is all premature. Again, until you show that the rules of a game (basketball) are equivalent to the law of God and an authority ordained by God, we have no foundation on which to discuss this particularly issue. Someone can’t be defying an authority from God until there is an authority from God. Furthermore, said authority has expectations, and by agreeing to the authority, you agree to the expectations. So if the authority expects the fouling to take place, then it is not defying the authority for it to happen. It is not wrong to do what the authority expects you to do.

So in the end, you have yet to show that this is a moral issue. You’ve skipped right past the most important part.

A bewildering perspective you have Larry. No one says that basketball rules are as authoritative as Biblical rules. But if someone goes into a basketball game, you would think they would be by default submitting to the rules and thus intentionally breaking them would be a moral issue. Would you not teach your children to obey the rules if they went into a basketball game? If so, why?

Again, I am lukewarm on this issue and don’t care about sports really but just don’t get where you are coming from. Not that I disagree with you that strongly; it is more about the dogmatic way you approach it, dismissing valid arguments in the process.

So you can’t call it sin to enter into an agreement whereby you borrow money and agree to pay it back with interest on a set timetable and do not fulfill your agreement? You don’t see that as stealing, or lying, or anything?

That wasn’t the scenario I posed nor a question I was asked. But since you ask here, of course it is sin if you enter into an agreement to borrow money and pay it back and you do not fulfill it.

What you have described is textbook relativism Larry.

Of course this relativism. That’s not even controversial. There’s a reason why when you foul in a basketball game the other team gets two shots, but when you shoot a man in cold blood you get life in prison or the death penalty. Relative to each other, they are significantly different, and that is noted by differing penalties. Relativism is not a bad word. It’s a good word. It’s the same thing as having perspective. The relativism that’s bad is when two equal things are treated differently. Treating different things differently is relativistic, and is proper. Again, that’s demonstrated in the Law of Moses given by God.

No wonder you don’t see any problem with disrespect for officials and disobedience to duly appointed authorities in deliberately breaking rules in a game to gain an advantage.

Actually, I have a great problem with this. But again, this wasn’t the issue that was raised. In a basketball game, when the official blows this whistle and makes a call, you respect that and abide by it whether you like it or not.

The problem continues to be, Chip, that you are refusing to mount any sort of argument in support of your position. There is no foundation for this discussion to even take place. You want to pretend that a game with an accepted standard of playing is equivalent to an authority established by God. You actually have to make that argument.

Until you do that, there is likely no need to continue here. Honestly, Chip, I am at a loss here. I don’t know how to proceed with no argument to respond to.

No one says that basketball rules are as authoritative as Biblical rules.

That appears to be the argument being made here, that to foul someone with the knowledge of accepting the penalty for it in the convention of a game is the same as defying God’s authority, and therefore is sin, just as is breaking God’s law in the word.

But if someone goes into a basketball game, you would think they would be by default submitting to the rules and thus intentionally breaking them would be a moral issue. Would you not teach your children to obey the rules if they went into a basketball game? If so, why?

Again, aren’t you confusing categories. It is not morally wrong to use accepted strategy in a non-moral context to accomplish a particular end. Yes, I teach kids to obey the rules. And part of the rules allows for fouling someone, giving up two shots, with a chance to get the ball back. There is also a case in the rule book for intentional fouling when you don’t get the ball back. Defiance of authority, or refusal to submit would be things like continuing to play after the whistle, arguing with officials, flagrant fouls intended to injure, grabbing a player’s jersey and hoping not to get caught, etc. None of that is being talked about here.

Wouldn’t you agree that in contexts, there are commonly accepted patterns of doing things in certain ways, and everyone expects it and agrees that it is a proper way to play? In fact, to fail to play that way could be (and would be by many) considered to be quitting. It’s not as simple as saying “You broke a rule. You sinned.”

Again, I am lukewarm on this issue and don’t care about sports really but just don’t get where you are coming from. Not that I disagree with you that strongly; it is more about the dogmatic way you approach it, dismissing valid arguments in the process.]

There have been no arguments made, much less valid ones. Arguments are propositions supported by other propositions of an evidentiary nature with the goal of persuading one to adopt a position. So far, all we have are propositions. We have no supporting propositions. The means to persuasion here has been to label something and declare that solves the problem.

As I said above, I am willing to entertain the argument, but the argument has to be made before I can entertain it.

My dogmatism (if it could even be called that) is only in the sense of trying to make a case for something. I would not confuse making a case with dogmatism. I don’t think this is that controversial for most. I am actually surprised that it has gone this far.

[Larry]

So you can’t call it sin to enter into an agreement whereby you borrow money and agree to pay it back with interest on a set timetable and do not fulfill your agreement? You don’t see that as stealing, or lying, or anything?

That wasn’t the scenario I posed nor a question I was asked. But since you ask here, of course it is sin if you enter into an agreement to borrow money and pay it back and you do not fulfill it.

That was exactly the scenario you posed. You wrote:

Someone who carries over a balance buying big screen TVs and eating out every night is different than someone who carries a balance because they are unemployed and buying groceries and gas. And both of those are different than someone who forgets to make a payment. Not all of it is sin, and none of it might be, but all of it involves a use of a card that is permissible so long as one is willing to pay the price for it.

That is a person entering into an agreement to borrow money that will be paid back with interest at a certain time. You describe someone who doesn’t fulfill the agreement they made and yet equivocate that it’s not always sin, perhaps never sin. It cannot be described as anything other than sin from a biblical perspective. Whether they deliberately intended to defraud the company from whom they borrowed, or they accidentally failed to fulfill their commitment, or they fully intended to meet the agreed terms when they made them but then found themselves facing unexpected circumstances so that they did not have anything with which to meet their commitment - in every scenario they are fully responsible for their failure to keep their promise. It is stealing to borrow from someone and then not pay them.