The Olympic Games are upon us
and it is often claimed what really matters in the Olympics and sport in
general is simply participating rather than actually winning. In this posting I
want to differentiate between participating and competing and will defend the
claim that winning is an essential element of any sport. My starting point for
this posting will be the actions of Megan Vogel who when competing in a race in
Ohio was running last but when about to pass Arden
McMath, who had collapsed, stopped and helped her across the line; see Megan
Vogel . Megan’s action has rightly
attracted much praise and many would suggest her action can be seen as demonstrating
that what really matters in sport is taking part rather than winning.
I will begin by arguing
Megan’s action was not part of sport. I do not intend to define sport precisely
as I could offer several differing definitions. However prima facie it seems
safe to assume any meaningful definition of sport must include the idea of
competition and a set of rules. Some might question this assumption as it would
rule out rock climbing and hunting as sports but might include chess. Megan’s
action was certainly not competitive. Nor did her action have anything to do
with the rules of athletics and as a result I would suggest had nothing to do
with sport. Someone might object that even if her actions did not directly
involve sport they did involve the ethos of sport, or sportsmanship. Once again
as with sport I do not want to offer a precise definition of sportsmanship. I
will however assume any definition must include the ideas of fairness, respect
for other competitors and a degree of graciousness in accepting the result of
any contest. Megan’s actions appear to have little to do with any of these
assumptions. Helping Arden Arden Arden
I have assumed that the
concept of sport must include the idea of competition and a set of rules. The
idea of competition is a meaningless one without the idea of winning. If
someone objects I would ask her to think of any sort of competition without a
winner or winners. My objector might now suggest even if sports must involve
competition not all sportsmen or women are competitors. She might point to mass
marathons such as those of London or New York
I have argued that
competition and winning are an essential element of sport and those who merely
participate in a sporting event such as a mass marathon are not really
sportsmen or women. It follows what is important to being involved with sport
is competing rather than merely participating and competition involves winners.
Merely taking part, participating in a sporting event is not what really
matters indeed it is irrelevant as far as sport is concerned.
One reason why the idea that
participating in a sporting event may seem to be as important as competing in
the event is that many of the virtues needed by someone to compete in an event
such as a marathon race are the same as those needed by someone merely to
complete the event. In order to compete or participate in a marathon someone
needs to be dedicated, determined, have a little practical wisdom and a degree
of temperance. This is a limited set of virtues. If someone is to have a sense
of sportsmanship she needs to augment this set by adding a sense of fairness
and respect for others. This set is a slightly larger set of virtues but still
remains a limited set. Earl Spurgin argues we should not expect sports stars to
be role models as this invades their right to privacy (1). The above suggests a
further reason; the virtues needed by sports stars are a limited set and the
set of virtues possessed by role models should be larger including humanity
based on empathy or sympathy such as that exhibited by Megan Vogel.
- Earl Spurgin 2012 Hey, How did I become a Role
Model? Privacy and the Extent of Role Model-Obligations. Journal of Applied Philosophy,
29(2)
No comments:
Post a Comment