Steeler Morality

So, Big Ben Roethlisberger is to serve a six game suspension for his loutish behavior in Georgia in May. Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, has come down on Ben like the proverbial ton of bricks, even though charges were never brought by the Georgian authorities. Apparently there was not enough to convict him of rape, even though it's pretty clear that he plied a young college student with drink then followed her into a bathroom. Perhaps he wanted to show her his etchings, or to discuss the niceties of social theory, or perhaps he was just being an arrogant jerk with too much money and no conscience.

I'm glad Ben got fined, even if it does mean that the Steelers are likely to have a less than stellar season this year. It's good that bad behavior has consequences. He could end up losing over $3million because of his little escapade. Presumably that is a drop in the bucket, but at least it should make him think again. Art Rooney and the Steelers organization are also to be commended for taking a hard line. No doubt there will be questions asked as to why they didn't trade Roethlisberger, given that they had just got rid of Santonio Holmes, but I imagine the answer is obvious. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but a great deal to do wih the strength of his arm. You don't build franchises around wide receivers, no matter how good. Ben has already brought two Super Bowls to Pittsburgh. He has the potential to bring even more revenue to his adopted city. But he will have to grow up. He does himself no credit with behavior that brings his team and his family into disrepute.

Having said all this, it does sound a little Victorian, doesn't it? The imposition of morality seems so out of place in our postmodern world. Especially since Ben was never officially charged, it makes Goodell look like a stern-faced headmaster, idly flicking the cane behind his back. It seems that Ben's punishment is due to the fact that he put somebody at risk. Would he have suffered if nobody had been in danger?

Recently, John Terry, the England Football player, was stripped of the captaincy of the national squad becuse he had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of a team mate. England's manager, the Italian Fabio Capello, won a great deal of respect in many quarters by taking decisive action. It's worth noting, though, that the action was not strictly speaking taken on moral grounds. Capello judged that Terry's behavior would have a detrimental effect upon team morale, should he be allowed to remain as captain. So, the fact that he betrayed a friend and broke a moral code is of secondary importance?

The problem is, of course, that everyone is afraid to talk about moral standards, except in as much as behavior endangers either health or success. Neither Goodell nor Capello dares to invoke a universal standard, such as the Ten Commandments. They are, nevertheless, making value judgments. It's worth asking "Upon what foundation are such judgments made?" Morality has to have a foundation, a rationale. You can't just keep condemning behavior on the basis of a moral code which society has ceased to embrace. Why should the exploitation of women be regarded as a societal evil? Is the prohibition something we have just decided upon, or is it the consequence of divine command?

Well done, Commissioner Goodell. I hope that you will apply the NFL's code of behavior with equaniminty. I hope, also, that one day someone will have the courage to condemn behaviors not because of any risk involved, but just because they are morally wrong.