Superheroes and Villains: Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
by Christopher Robichaud on April 15, 2009 in Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
What are the ethics of winning and losing? If I compete with someone for a job and get it, or don’t, how should I behave, morally speaking? If a politician wins, or loses, how should her supporters behave?
Sincerely,
Worried About Winning (and Losing!)
Dear Worried About Winning (and Losing!),
Competition often, though not always, brings out the best in us. But there is also little doubt over the reality of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Your question is quite relevant, since many of you are now in the process of competing with each other in a brutal job market, whether for permanent positions or for summer internships. It’s also a relevant question when we look to the national stage and see how members of the two political parties are behaving in light of the past election.
A distinction I’ve made in the past is worth emphasizing again. There’s a prudential dimension to your concern and a moral one. Here’s how you should see the difference as it concerns national politics. Congressional Democrats were big winners in this past election. They have the power to more or less ignore the GOP. And morally speaking, they’re permitted to do that, given the legitimate authority they possess. But prudentially speaking, such behavior might be cautioned against, on the grounds that sooner or later, the GOP will regain power in Congress. When that happens, they will likely behave at that time as they were treated at this time. So a case can be made that acting with restraint is what Congressional Democrats prudentially ought to do in this situation, though they’re not morally obligated to behave in this way.
With that in mind, recall the platitudes we’re acquainted with concerning victory and defeat: one ought to win or lose graciously, not be a poor sport, etc. Is there more to say than this? Of course. It seems to me that it’s of the utmost importance, when considering competitions, that both persons or groups willingly compete. So long as that’s true, it is perfectly permissible, morally speaking, to publically celebrate victory if you’re the victor, and to publically express sadness and disappointment if you’re the loser. It’s also permissible to enjoy the benefits of victory.
If Jane and Joe are competing for the same job, and Jane ends up getting it, she’s not morally obligated to “play it down” to Joe, or to let him find out on his own, or to not bring it up at all, or anything like that. They both willingly and fairly competed for a job only one of them could get. She’s not doing anything morally wrong should she choose to openly express happiness at getting the job, even if Joe’s around. And Joe isn’t obligated, morally, to bury his disappointment if Jane’s around.
This might seem obvious, but at HKS, I think folks sometimes mistake supererogatory actions for obligatory ones. Supererogatory actions go above and beyond the call of duty. Jane may choose to withhold public exuberance because she’s extremely interested in not hurting Joe’s feelings. That’s fine, of course, but doing so isn’t morally required of her.
Comments
Got something to say?
