While analyzing the movie “Cobb” directed by Ron Sheldon, produced by David V. Lester there are many ethically incorrect things that come to mind when hearing the name Ty Cobb. Cobb is the self-proclaimed ‘best baseball player of all time’. Cobb is the opposite of what the author of our textbook Robert Schneider describes as deontological. Cobb never seemed to “act solely based on moral principles that we would want moralized: (pg. 19).” This shows when he is so rude to the black man who ran out of his house at the beginning of the movie and refused at first to give him a ride during a blizzard to the nearest town. Ty Cobb seemed to never treat anyone how he would want to be treated, and the twisted thing is by watching this movie you learn that “everyone hated him, and he loved it.” Ethically and morally Ty Cobb seems to be everything that your parents …show more content…
tell you not to be when a kid. He is arrogant, he is unfair, and he was not a respecting or liked man when it came to his moral. But he was a respected man when it came to his sport- baseball. At the beginning of this movie it shows a slight clip of Ty in his younger years, it makes him seem like he is a moral man. He talks about how he was baptized and his families background as if he was raised to uphold the highest values. The narrator talks about how he was looked up to by children and even helped teach them tricks how to play baseball better. He seemed to be respected by people, but was that because of his moral character “evaluation of moral quality of a person based on his or her demonstration of moral values or lack thereof: (pg. 96).” Or was he admired and respected because of his social status and his talent even though he was so mean and ruthless towards people at times? Ty Cobb is the poster child for being an antihero, an antihero as described by Schneider is “in a sport the people or persons who choose to be the opposite of a role model: (pg. 110).” That is exactly what Ty Cobb portrayed himself as. During this film Al Stump seemed to be portrayed as the good guy, he was more respectful of other people opposed to Cobb who didn’t care about anyone but himself at all.
Stump carried himself in a way more deontological manor than Cobb and having a good moral character as opposed to Cobb who was the consequentialist. Meaning that “his actions are judged to how they affect oneself rather than principals or values (pg. 19).” Cobb shows this many times in the movie but it stuck out the most when he was trash talking one of the catchers. He tells the catcher that “his wife left these” and throws the clothing at the catcher. Although trash talking can be useful in throwing off your opponent during a game “saying unjust things to another player during a game or practice to try and gain the advantage: (pg. 98).” There was no reason for Cobb to be insulting the catcher because in reality there isn’t much that the catcher could do to Cobb while he was up to bat. He said that in order to make himself happy because he was insulting another player. Cobb showed little to no respect for his
opponents. Stumps moral character really stood out to me when he was talking to the woman in the bar. She clearly knows that he is trying to sleep with her, but he is so respectful and awkward about it that you can tell he doesn’t feel right in that situation. In the scene following their encounter Cobb comes into their hotel room and beats Stump to the ground. He takes the woman into his own hotel room and shows no respect towards this woman in any way, also backing up my thought that his life is indeed closely intertwined with the consequentialism theory. After telling her that she needs to do exactly what he says he gives her a thousand dollars to tell everyone that “she slept with Ty Cobb and he’s the best lay she’s ever had” and that she “need to tell everyone she knows.” This to me shows some serious egonistic reasoning on Cobb’s part, meaning that he is “using logical thinking for the purpose of his own interest: (pg. 102).” He pays this woman off in order to make himself look better and that is not ethically right in anyway. Throughout this film the director made it clear that there are differences between these two men. On one hand you have a “raging lunatic” as Stump described Cobb at one point in the film, whereas on the other hand you have one of the highest paid sports writers in the industry who is humbler than expected. Cobb and Stump definitely have their differences when it comes to life, not only morals but socially as well. Cobb’s social character “evaluation of the social quality of a person based on his or her practices of social values: (pg. 96).” Is not as admirable as Stumps social character. Cobb is described as “a racist bastard that hates everyone.” And this is validated in the film at the club when he gets up to speak and talks about how much he hates everyone there because of racial and religious differences. As far as Ty Cobb’s sportsmanship goes, did he actually have any? Robert Schneider describes sportsmanship as “putting moral standards ahead of strategic achievement in a sport: (pg. 77).” Ty Cobb may have had some sportsmanship deep down in his soul, but for the most part he practiced hedonism more than sportsmanship. He brought himself happiness before caring about his moral reasoning. He did not have a good sportsman like conduct record, he fought with almost everyone. It states during the movie that he had sent over thirteen people to the hospital in one season. Cobb and Stump had many differences, but they also had a good amount of similarities as well. Both men were insanely passionate about success, though Stump wasn’t ruthless when it came to getting what he wanted he did make sure that he got what he deserved. During the movie he talks about how he lied to Cobb about what he was writing in and left it on his type writer where the real story was being written on cocktail napkins and stray pieces of paper. To me that was disappointing to see Stump use consequentialism just so he could write the story that he wanted to write as opposed to how it would affect Cobb if people really knew the truth about his childhood and past. These two men both have tempers that could blow someone away. Cobb’s temper was all the time, anything could set him off but Stump’s temper was mainly triggered by Cobb from what was shown in the movie. These two men by the end had developed a mutual respect for each other. What stood out to me the most in this movie was even though Cobb and Stump had their differences and rarely ever got along, they got around their differences and accomplished great things together. Stump was there to witness Ty Cobb be one of the first men to ever be inducted into the baseball hall of fame, he was also there to tell great stories about Cobb when he passed on. Stump’s actions and words that he wrote about Ty Cobb even if they weren’t the truth displayed the telogical theory of ethics. He put Cobb’s wishes before his own and suppressed the truth in order for Cobb to be a hero. Stump portrayed Cobb as a hero, he says in the ending scene “… I lied because I needed him to be my hero.” And continued to tell everyone all of the great memories he had made with Ty Cobb.
When asked to name great hitters, fans would probably mention the likes of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Ted Williams. It would not come as a surprise if they forgot to include the Georgia Peach, Ty Cobb, on their list. The reason for their forgetfulness stems from the era in which Cobb played. Beginning his career in 1905, Cobb played baseball through the period dubbed “the dead ball era.” During this era (1900-1919), players hit marginally fewer homeruns than players from other eras. The reason for this homerun shortage resulted from the baseball used at the time. Indeed, the ball had no life. Loosely wound, one baseball often served throughout an entire game. Moreover, larger ball fields also kept the homerun totals down (“1900-1919”). Legal pitches also included the spitball, a terrib...
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
Ethical Rules on Sport’s Justice. Dallas: East Dallas Times, page 21. 2008. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Print: Harry, Patrick Hayes.
...-business" and "no play" attitude which enabled him to achieve stardom. "The Peach" poured all his heart and soul into baseball, and manager George Leidy’s prediction proved true: "… you will have every boy in America idolizing you. Cobb certainly retired from baseball with no regrets about his effort, which certainly would have made W.H. Cobb proud of his son.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
"Cobb is a prick. But he sure can hit. God Almighty, that man can hit.
To begin, parallel and conflicting characteristics can be realized by exploring the judges of the two cases. Judge Horton and Judge Taylor both presided over the cases. Judge Horton was the second of three judges in the Scottsboro cases, and Judge Taylor was the fictional judge in To Kill a Mockingbird. The two both exhibited undeniable sympathy to the defendants in the cases. Judge Horton sympathizes with the nine Scottsboro boys by declaring, “You are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black … you are trying whether or not this defendant forcibly ravished a woman” (People and Events). It is obvious that Judge Horton was unprejudiced and believed the boys should be treated with equality. This attitude is akin to the one of Judge Taylor; Taylor assigned Atticus Finch, a notable lawyer, to the case of the fictional black character Tom Robinson. Maxwell Green, an inexperience rookie, should have been assigned the case; however due to Taylor’s empathy, Tom obtained a decent lawyer who would do h...
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Should a neglected, discriminated, and misplaced black man living in the mid 1900s possessing a spectacular, yet unfulfilled talent for baseball be satisfied or miserable? The play Fences, written by August Wilson, answers this question by depicting the challenging journey of the main character, Troy Maxon. Troy, an exceptional baseball player during his youth, cannot break the color barrier and is kept from playing in the big leagues. That being his major life setback, Troy has a pessimistic view on the world. His attitude is unpleasant, but not without justification. Troy has a right to be angry, but to whom he takes out his anger on is questionable. He regularly gets fed up with his sons, Lyons and Cory, for no good reason. Troy disapproves of Lyons’ musical goals and Cory’s football ambitions to the point where the reader can notice Troy’s illogical way of releasing his displeasures. Frank Rich’s 1985 review of Fences in the New York Times argues that Troy’s constant anger is not irrational, but expected. Although Troy’s antagonism in misdirected, Rich is correct when he observes that Troy’s endless anger is warranted because Troy experiences an extremely difficult life, facing racism, jail, and poverty.
It is not uncommon for employers to talk about their employees among their co-workers or supervisors. But what happens when a company or an individual representing the organization discloses too much information regarding an employee. It is in the best interest of any employer to limit their comments or statements regarding present or past employees as their actions can lead them down a path of court fees and lawsuits. Moreover, companies stand a considerable risk of being sued when they discuss references, employee discharge or evaluations, and other similar situations (Jennings, 1992, p.1). The case of Ms. Gail Davis v. Ms. Diana Ross proves that not only does a person need to be cautious with their selection of words but also
The cases that were listed within this essay all had something in common. They were all able to prove that stem cell research can be helpful but can also pose some major ethical and legal issues. The case Sherley v. Sebelius, filed by a group of plaintiffs lead by M.D., PH.D. James Sherley and PH.D Theresa Deisher, felt that the federal funding of embryonic stem cells ESC violated Dickey- Wicker’s amendment prohibits federal funding of research in which a human embryo is to be harmed or destroyed. The appeal Sherley and her colleagues made, was unnecessary. The laws that are currently set out for embryonic stem cell research are at a reasonable level. They allow for the researchers to carry on with their research but with certain proclivities.
Consequentialism has been around for many years and is the theory that actions are judged according to how they affect oneself or others, rather than on the principles or values upon which the actions are based (Schneider, 2009). This means that a person’s actions can be justified without considering the moral implications. Consequentialism is the moral theory that most people involved in sports tend to use, because they can always justify an action because it was done to try to win a game or get a competitive advantage. This was easier to do in the early years of sports, but in today’s world of the internet and 24 hours sports, it seems almost every move a coach, player, or owner makes is dissected and their morals and ethics are called into question. In the early 1900’s, baseball pitchers routinely doctored baseballs in order to make the ball move and become harder to hit. While this practice was illegal, pitchers knew that umpires rarely ever enforced the rule so they would scuff the ball to get out the hitters. They were able to justify this
...aches his children to see through people’s disabilities and skin color. He stands for what is right without disrupting the town, but isn’t afraid to voice his opinions when it was necessary. He creates equal rights for everyone by helping Tom Robinson during his trial while everyone else didn’t.