The John Terry Moral Reasoning Thread

[101Walterton]

No we aren't under any obligation to agree but if you think " it's none of the friend's business" we clearly work by a different moral code I would never treat my friends with that lack of thought for them.

That's fair, I see what you're saying. We definitely all want to do right by our friends, I know I certainly do! I guess maybe I just see it a little bit differently from you. When we talk about a situation where, say, I'm the hypothetical friend who is pursuing/engaged in a relationship with a friend's ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend!), I guess maybe I think that it's the friend of mine who is abusing the friendship if he or she gets bent out of shape and tried to pressure some outcome or another. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own feelings and reactions, we often can't help them! However, I'd hope that even if this friend of mine was in love/interested in the person I was pursuing a relationship with, they'd realize that we're both independent agents and that it's unfair to try to force their friends (and maybe this person they feel great affection for!) to conform to (unrequited!) feelings they have/had.

Speaking from personal experience, as opposed to a hypothetical, I've been on both sides of that equation (all three, actually) and while I certainly reacted to a friend dating an ex- that I still had feelings towards, I realized that it was none of my business. When I was on the other side of the equation, dating the ex- of a friend, we just kind of stumbled into it and my friend kind of had to deal with it. I don't think I was being unfair, he may or may not have had feelings towards this woman which she certainly didn't reciprocate and we were two independent agents acting of our own accord. In any case, my friend said - quite rightly - it was none of his business and we remain friends to this day (the woman in question is long gone from both our lives).

I think that feeling the need to express outrage or that you have some kind of claim to who a friend can or cannot be involved with is somewhat troubling. It seems to me that it's attempting to subvert the agency of another person for your own ends or satisfaction. This is especially troubling if you're dealing with, say, an ex-wife or girlfriend since it often seems that people feel they have some sort of "right" to be involved in their personal affairs!

As I said, that's just my take. As you said, certainly the goal is to do right by our friends. I think for me that means respecting their rights to engage in whatever relationships they choose! As I said previously, tho, we're not necessarily under any obligation to agree with each other and your mileage, of course, may vary.

Cheers!

I understand your points. I personally would never go out with my friends ex partner without asking first how they felt about it (my loyalty being first to my friend) I would consider it good manners and respectful. If you did it to me you could expect the same outrage this story has generated. We are poles apart here so I suggest we leave it there.

[Marky Dread]

It appears that our American/Canadian friends (Flex not included) see this issue in only black and white and as looking in from outside to this sad fiasco don't tend to see the hurt and pain it caused Wayne Bridge. It's not as deep as objectifying women or ownership it's all down to respect to the situation they were mates and you do not shit on your mates EVER.

Yes moral code and yes social grace but above all respect for your friend. Fucking damn right Bridge didn't shake that cunt Terry's hand when they met at Stamford Bridge (Chelsea's Home) on saturday if it had been me I would've spat at him and then pissed all over him for what he had done, Friendship is not something to be scoffed at or taken lightly. If a mate of mine had slept with the mother of my child I would offer him nothing but hatred for the rest of my life wether she's an ex or not it's unforgivable. You don't even ask your friend if he minds if you date her it should just be a given that she is a no mans land to you.

As for the pathetic Chelsea fans who booed Bridge everytime he kicked the ball they can go and fuck right off and get a life bunch of fucking sheep. And to those Chelsea fans who stood up and applauded Bridge when he was substituted much respect.

As for the football Chelsea got theirs on the day.

[Wolter]

(Flex not included) .

WHOA! Medulla and I basically just agreed with Flex! Hell, I gave him power of attorney.

[eumaas]

Let me reiterate that I am taking a neutral stand on the issue in this thread. I think as a Chelsea supporter, anything I say would probably look biased--either too soft or compensating by being too hard.

[Flex]

It appears that our American/Canadian friends (Flex not included)

Cheers, Marky! I appreciate the shout-out.

It's not as deep as objectifying women or ownership

If you don't mind, I think I debated the basic point you raise with Wally a fair amount and I don't want to force anyone to re-read the same basic argument I just made a few posts ago, and I think we can pre-emptively agree to disagree about a lot of this. The rest of your post seemed to also hit on a lot of football (round) references which, as an American, both confused and terrified me ( ). If you have any particulars you'd like to see me respond to, just let me know and I'll be happy to do so!

I guess the point I want to address is a relatively small piece in your post from a word-count standpoint, but which I think might actually be quite important! I guess I have to disagree with the assertion that this (or most any issue!) isn't "deep." Certainly, we may not always care to assess a behavior or event in more than a superficial way, but I firmly believe that all these types of events, relationships, reactions and responses can (and maybe even should!) be analyzed in a number of ways and there are even a few ways we can discuss an event like this. For example, one way we could analyze this scandal is how it affects on-field performance of teams (either by individual player performance or by team roster makeup or whatever else). I am the first to admit I am in NO WAY qualified to assess this topic on those terms. Another way we can discuss this topic is, say, who involved may have moral obligation to another. That's mostly the level we've discussed this issue at, and while consensus hasn't been reached regarding who may be "at fault" here, I like to think we've reached a friendly impass. And that's awesome! That's usually how these things work!

Another way we can look at this scandal, is maybe in what it tells us about how our society (if we're talking about "western society," or maybe "your society" if we're talking about England. See, lot's of layers!) looks at power and gender! That's a way to frame this topic that we've touched on a bit but haven't looked at very in-depth. One tabloid thinks one actor in this event has a certain obligation to another while some other analyst says something completely different. Why is this? What does that tell us about our preconceptions regarding gender, masculinity, power and status (and maybe a bunch of other things too! These are just off the top of my head)? I think it's a mistake to say that a scandal like this can't or shouldn't be viewed through these frameworks.

While I know next to nothing about football (round), I do dabble in gender studies a bit and while I don't feel comfortable writing a paper on this topic or anything, I do see a lot of interesting issues at play here that maybe tell us a lot about how we relate to each other and the world, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly! Both are interesting, the latter perhaps even more so! These are the kind of juicy and interesting things that pop up from time to time which allow us to step back and examine questions like: why did I side with this actor in the event in question? What does it say about the agency I assume some people have over others that I think certain people have these certain obligations? Does society as a whole think this way and where might that come from? Is the symptomatic of a larger issue, and if so what is it? There's literally (well, no, not literally. But definitely figuratively) a feast of fascinating study to be done on an issue like this and I'd hope that we don't just toss these different layers aside and focus solely on one way to examine the topic under discussion (or any other topic for that matter)!

Cheers Marky, and thanks again for the kind words!

EDIT(s): Spelling

[eumaas]

Examination and moral reasoning is exactly what the thread's about.

[Marky Dread]

Let me reiterate that I am taking a neutral stand on the issue in this thread. I think as a Chelsea supporter, anything I say would probably look biased--either too soft or compensating by being too hard.

This has nothing to do with football only respect for someone you call a friend. But then you know that as you took it out of the football thread.

[eumaas]

Let me reiterate that I am taking a neutral stand on the issue in this thread. I think as a Chelsea supporter, anything I say would probably look biased--either too soft or compensating by being too hard.

This has nothing to do with football only respect for someone you call a friend. But then you know that as you took it out of the football thread.

Well, it's certainly had something to do with football in that there have been roster ramifications.

I took it out of the thread primarily because I wanted to use it as a starting point for an examination and discussion of moral reasoning, i.e. how we arrive at a moral judgment, as strong words were being used to characterize Terry and his conduct.

[eumaas]

Incidentally, Marky, while you're here--could you answer the survey questions in the original topic?

[Marky Dread]

Let me reiterate that I am taking a neutral stand on the issue in this thread. I think as a Chelsea supporter, anything I say would probably look biased--either too soft or compensating by being too hard.

This has nothing to do with football only respect for someone you call a friend, but then you know that as you took it out of the football thread.

It's not important who supports what team and it's simply not a case of analysing this affair to 9th degree. It's all about friendship and what that means to the individual. I know what it means to me and while I do not know personally either John Terry or Wayne Bridge I do know how English people feel about respect and loyalty there is a code of honour a line you do not cross where friendship is concerned and John Terry sadly crossed it.

This has been blown out of all proportion by the U.K. press because of the players fame/high profile however it relates on every level of society. If it happened in my clsoe circle of friends (which it wouldn't) that individual would be completely vilified as trust in friendship is all.

[Marky Dread]

Incidentally, Marky, while you're here--could you answer the survey questions in the original topic?

Um which one? The one about Man Utd using underage boys they stole from the Vatican....it's all true.

[eumaas]

Incidentally, Marky, while you're here--could you answer the survey questions in the original topic?

Um which one? The one about Man Utd using underage boys they stole from the Vatican....it's all true.

I was just kidding about that! Seriously. I don't think Man U has any pedophiles.

I meant these:

1. To whom do you think the most moral harm was committed? Bridge or Terry's wife? And what's the reasoning behind your choice?

2. From John Terry's position as a moral agent, which aspect of his act disfigured his character more: cheating on his wife or betraying his friend? Which moral commitment took priority? What's the reasoning behind your choice?

What I saw in the thread: people making moral judgments, and using the word "scum" even. I'm not coming down on either side of the issue. I just want to see the moral reasoning behind that particular judgment. And if you consider it inappropriate to talk about these people in particular, then address a hypothetical similar situation. I'm seeking to understand how people reason morally. All of this is fairly helpful both to 1. how I think about ethics in an academic way, and 2. trying to understand right and wrong in a more practical sense as it relates to my own decisions. So I think it's both a deep topic and a useful one.

[Marky Dread]

While I know next to nothing about football (round), I do dabble in gender studies a bit and while I don't feel comfortable writing a paper on this topic or anything, I do see a lot of interesting issues at play here that maybe tell us a lot about how we relate to each other and the world, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly! Both are interesting, the latter perhaps even more so! These are the kind of juicy and interesting things that pop up from time to time which allow us to step back and examine questions like: why did I side with this actor in the event in question? What does it say about the agency I assume some people have over others that I think certain people have these certain obligations? Does society as a whole think this way and where might that come from? Is the symptomatic of a larger issue, and if so what is it? There's literally (well, no, not literally. But definitely figuratively) a feast of fascinating study to be done on an issue like this and I'd hope that we don't just toss these different layers aside and focus solely on one way to examine the topic under discussion (or any other topic for that matter)!

Cheers Marky, and thanks again for the kind words!

EDIT(s): Spelling[/quote]

Your lack of football knowledge is akin to my lack of gender studies knowledge, but I do understand friendship and the impotance of it as I sincerely believe from your posts here that you do also. Some things to my way of thinking are really simple and have no need to be analysed people who value friendship do so implicitly.

Maybe I was a bit hard on my American/Canadian attack earlier in this post and I often read into things wrongly, but it just appeared to me that folks here were coming across really cold where another man feelings were being hurt.

[101Walterton]

Let me reiterate that I am taking a neutral stand on the issue in this thread. I think as a Chelsea supporter, anything I say would probably look biased--either too soft or compensating by being too hard.

This has nothing to do with football only respect for someone you call a friend, but then you know that as you took it out of the football thread.

It's not important who supports what team and it's simply not a case of analysing this affair to 9th degree. It's all about friendship and what that means to the individual. I know what it means to me and while I do not know personally either John Terry or Wayne Bridge I do know how English people feel about respect and loyalty there is a code of honour a line you do not cross where friendship is concerned and John Terry sadly crossed it.

This has been blown out of all proportion by the U.K. press because of the players fame/high profile however it relates on every level of society. If it happened in my clsoe circle of friends (which it wouldn't) that individual would be completely vilified as trust in friendship is all.

Exactly what I said earlier.

[Marky Dread]

Incidentally, Marky, while you're here--could you answer the survey questions in the original topic?

Um which one? The one about Man Utd using underage boys they stole from the Vatican....it's all true.

I was just kidding about that! Seriously. I don't think Man U has any pedophiles.

I meant these:

1. To whom do you think the most moral harm was committed? Bridge or Terry's wife? And what's the reasoning behind your choice?

2. From John Terry's position as a moral agent, which aspect of his act disfigured his character more: cheating on his wife or betraying his friend? Which moral commitment took priority? What's the reasoning behind your choice?

What I saw in the thread: people making moral judgments, and using the word "scum" even. I'm not coming down on either side of the issue. I just want to see the moral reasoning behind that particular judgment. And if you consider it inappropriate to talk about these people in particular, then address a hypothetical similar situation. I'm seeking to understand how people reason morally. All of this is fairly helpful both to 1. how I think about ethics in an academic way, and 2. trying to understand right and wrong in a more practical sense as it relates to my own decisions. So I think it's both a deep topic and a useful one.

1. The damages are attributed to all parties by one mans lack of loyalty. Everybody will suffer as a result of the protaganists being high profile the media will see that.

2.As for John Terry's cheating on his wife and betraying his friend both acts are one and the same as he had made a commitment of sorts to both. Is John Terry's wife less important than his friendship with Wayne Bridge the answer is no. He betrayed both.

Do people who don't know these celebrities have the right to judge them and call them scum when they act poorly. Yes I believe they do as they are privilledged to be in their positions. Do we expect too much from them afterall they are only human. Treat them the same as you would anyone else in life afterall you are only human too.