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.

Tea and the Slippery Slope

I happen to like tea. I prefer black tea - a blend of orange pekoe and broken orange pekoe that most Americans would call "English Breakfast Tea." I like it piping hot. In fact, the hotter the better otherwise the tea will not infuse properly and the leaves will rise in the cup. Yes, I brew it in the cup, mainly because that's how I like it. I just have to remember not to drain the cup! In my humble opinion tea should have milk in it, and it should not be flavored. Blackcurrant, mango, and mint may be wonderful flavors for soft drinks, but they should not be allowed to contaminate tea. It goes without saying that the words "iced" and "tea" should not be used in the same sentence, sweetened or unsweetened.

Does that make me a tea-snob, or (as someone once called me) a tea-afficianado? No, it just means that I prefer my tea the way I have been drinking it since I was a small boy. I'm not going to judge your preferences, but neither am I going to apologize for mine. I just happen to like my tea good and strong and very hot!

Other people take their tea differently. In China, Gaiwan Tea has full green leaves floating in the cup. In Japan, Sencha is green tea that remains unfermented. Other traditions predominate in other areas. Millions of people enjoy their favorite drink in many different ways. And that's fine. To accept this, we have to have a basic understanding of cultural relativism. Different cultures have different ways of doing things. It's good to know that we are not all the same. Who knows, I might try iced pomegranate tea one day and like it. It's not very probable, but it might happen.

The problem comes when cultural relativism becomes ethical relativism. Let's imagine that, in order to produce their favorite type of tea, the citizens of Pomerania require that all of their left-handed children be taken from their parents, trained to climb to the tops of the trees to gather the youngest, most succulent leaves. Ethical relativism says that, since different cultures have different moral beliefs, we should not judge the Pomeranians. They have their method of producing tea and we have ours. That's just the way it is.

Ethical relativism tends to degenerate, over time, into ethical scepticism, which proposes that there are no absolute moral rules. If the citizens of Pomerania decide to kidnap children from our country and to force them into slavery, we still can't judge them, because absolute moral rules are impossible to prove. All that we can do it to prevent their capture, or rescue them. We will do this, not because we judge the Pomeranian tea-manufacturing process to be immoral, but because we value our children. With regard to ethical norms, we remain sceptical.

Ethical scepticism tends to degenerate, over time, into ethical nihilism, in which there are thought to be no moral rules at all. The Pomeranians may not only steal our children, they may also sacrifice them to the tea-gods after the harvest, adding their blood to the brew! As nihilists we will be unable to do anything, other than exert a superior military force. Morally, we could not challenge the Pomeranians. We could not describe them as "evil," since evil does not exist. We could not judge them, since there would be no standard we could bring to bear. No universal principle would guide us. No holy book would determine right from wrong.

* * * * * * * *

Of course this is all a bad dream. Cultural relativism does not need to become ethical relativism, which does not need to become ethical scepticism, which does not need to become ethical nihilism. And this conversation is not about tea.