Honor and Ethics in Competitive Sports

An honorable win is one that many people strive for in a competition. To act in a way that could be considered unethical could cause a win to be considered tarnished. Mill is seen to believe the idea that quality should be more important than quantity. This idea is viewed and supported by many in different competitive settings. The way a player plays a sport can often define the person themselves. A person can be viewed in ways such as humble, competitive, or a liar that can view them in good bad or a neutral view. Honor is a word closely associated with the sport of golf. This is a sport unlike many others where for the most part only you and your opponent can truly call the shots and be the referees. This is a game where you must call penalties

on yourself sometimes and this can often lead to some different views of the truths. A rule can be seen as making a game as fair, but in some cases the rules can cause for a person to act in a way that can be viewed as unethical. The perspective used for certain rules can create the distorted views on what is and is not ethical. The rule pertaining to advice can be proven as both ethical and unethical.
Two ethical perspectives that will be used to prove the argument are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

One definition of utilitarianism in general highlights the idea that an action is considered morally right or wrong depending on their results of the action (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The idea highlights that the end results are the only factor that truly matter in the decision of whether or not an action is morally right or wrong(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Utilitarianism can be split into two more detailed perspectives which are act and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism focus is on an individual case’s outcome (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Rule Utilitarianism looks at the action and its outcome in general (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Jeremy Bentham is associated with utilitarianism and his view of hedonism which is in response to the question of what is considered good in the world (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Hedonism focuses on pleasure or happiness as being the only good (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). Pleasure and happiness are considered goods themselves since compared to friends or families that can produce such valuables as pleasure and happiness (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). This means that the gift of happiness one that cannot produce anything that would be of greater value. The views associated with hedonism have been rejected in cases since they only considered the

feeling as the greatest gift and not health or the enlightenment of knowledge. Act utilitarian wants the best overall results for each case when rule utilitarian focus on the importance of a moral rule (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).Therefore if an action can be seen to go along with a moral rule then the action is moral in the perspective of rule utilitarian(“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The moral rule that is used in this process though must be viewed to have the highest positive outcome compared to others (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The rule and act utilitarian perspectives highlight how an individual action can be considered both unethical and ethical.
Golf is a sport of many rules. Often there are questions and clarifications and the penalties can be forgotten so you and your opponent might try to think of what it was. A rule that can be view important, especially in a competitive setting is the rule that is against giving advice. One cannot ask for or give advice to another player and if they disobey, then they have a two stroke penalty in stroke play (“Asking for or Giving Advice Can Be a Breach of Golf Rules”). Stroke play is when you take count your score based on the amount of swings that you take. Advice is basically any information that cannot be seen as a fact. If a person asked what club you used to hit, then they would receive a penalty and if the opponent just stated what they were hitting as unwanted advice then they themselves would be the one to receive the penalty. The questions about the distances from the landmarks or where the flag is and other public information though is acceptable to ask and not considered advice. Questions can arise often on whether or not someone has asked for advice and this rule can be considered very important. There was even an article about whether or not Jason Day asked or received advice by Tiger Woods for his PGA tournament and although denied this type of information would have allowed for an unfair advantage for him over his opponents (). If this advice was actually obtained though the idea of whether or not it was ethical or not could be disputed. For one thing if this advice was obtained or received it could allow for an unfair advantage for Day over his opponents as some previous knowledge on the course would have been obtained. Even if the hypothetical advice was not asked for but used anyway should Day be penalized? For a rule utilitarian the rule on giving advice can be seen as not being broken since the hypothetical advice would have been obtained off the golf course. Therefore no rule has been broken and the greater good for Day such as the win and the happiness caused is obtained making the action ethical. If this hypothetical situation was applied to act utilitarian though the individual situation shows that Day would obtain his net happiness, but the opponents would lose and the overall outcome would be negative compared to other possibilities. The idea with Mills quality over quantity would not be followed as if advice was given that this win was achieved could be considered to be tarnished. Therefore in act utilitarianism if Day hypothetically received advice from Woods it could be considered unethical.
The idea of giving advice can be considered friendly and common in a friendly game of golf, but when playing competitively this innocent act could be called and in PGA or other high televised tournaments there are officials who can also call out these types of penalties. In the 1980 Tournament of Champions at Las Costa Resorts, Tom Watson saw that he was in a big lead and that his opponent Lee Trevino was struggling(“Pros Can’t Give Each Other Advice”). Watson trying to be helpful gave a tip that was caught on live television(“Pros Can’t Give Each Other Advice”). The viewers saw and called about this, which lead to PGA officials who asked Watson, he admitted and was given a two stroke penalty(“Pros Can’t Give Each Other Advice”). Watson still won by three strokes(“Pros Can’t Give Each Other Advice”). In rule utilitarianism the moral thing is for Watson to follow the rule of not giving advice to allow for a fair game for him and his opponent. Therefore in rule utilitarianism Watson’s action could be considered unethical. If his action was considered in act utilitarianism the greater good comes from the one that would receive the greatest pleasure. If the idea adapted by Bentham on hedonism was not followed and the gain of knowledge was associated with the happiness then this action of giving advice when there was a big lead and Trevino was struggling could be viewed as ethical. This situation, like many others is where the rules created and ethics does not match and therefore there is a conflict between rule and act utilitarianism.
The rules for giving advice applies to all on the golf course.

So not only is the player responsible to be following the rules, but also the caddie is responsible to follow the rules of only giving advice to their player and the player they are with must be responsible for them(). In the 2006 Honda Classic, Mark Wilson gave himself a two stroke penalty after his caddie gave advice to another player although he still won (ESPN). Even though Wilson didn’t state the hybrid his caddie Chris Jones did and if Wilson did not ask it would have been unlikely for the officials to have noticed (ESPN). This penalty led to a sudden death and although Wilson still won the sudden death would have been unnecessary if only his caddie did not unintentionally try to help others (ESPN). In rule utilitarianism, Wilson action of giving himself the penalty was the ethical thing to do. Since his action is honorable to accredit for the fact that the caddie caused for the conditions to be considered unfair. For act utilitarianism the unintentional individual action of the caddie should have not affected the outcome of Wilson’s game. Especially since the advice was not noticed by anyone other than Wilson. This outcome for the individual case is unethical within the act utilitarian perspective. This specific example, brings up a question that many golfers are faced to answer for many different parts of the game and that is whether or not an action that goes unnoticed by others should be called upon

and penalized or if the action that may be against the rule should not be announced if it goes unnoticed. The whole question of honor and what is honorable can be seen to be asked when being compared to some of the different rules within the game of golf. The idea of sharing knowledge or giving advice can be seen as a good thing that can benefit the community as a whole, but in this case if the knowledge is not known by all and there for considered advice then it is not to be told. This allows for the skills of being observant to be obtained as the ability to observe and figure out what club your opponent uses is fair game. The opponents, though cannot touch the other players clubs.
Golf has been considered a sport with honor and different than others because for the most part you and your partner are the only ones calling the shots. The large tournaments for the PGA and other more prestigious tournaments are really the only ones where there is someone else who can call rules. The rule about advice, although fair in the sense of rule utilitarianism could be seen as unethical in multiple scenarios for act utilitarian. If the rule was altered to allow for a player to give advice with their own will when they are so far ahead I believe would be a change that would be more ethical. This ability to give advice could help the losing opponent gain knowledge and be considered as something similar to a handicap. The rule could still make it so that you can never ask for advice so that this action is more of a voluntary act rather than an act that must be applied. If a person is in the lead to the point that there is no doubt that they will win this advice could allow for the player to have more competition on the last holes and create this environment where a value of the sport within honor is the ability to try and help others achieve more knowledge on the sport and on what to use or how to approve their swing.