If Music Could Talk

I figure this can be a thread for ethics-related news stories in general. I'm starting off with ol' JT, though.

101Walterton wrote:Yes, never shit on your mates it's unforgiveable, hence the reaction.

That you frame this in terms of his betraying his friend rather than his betraying his wife is interesting to me, and a nice branching point for a little moral reasoning.

This is addressed to anybody reading the thread:
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?

To me, the moment that the teammate and his girlfriend broke up, the teammate is no longer relevant to any discussion. He's out of the relationship, so what goes on with her going forward does not involve him. To suggest that Terry betrayed a teammate suggests that the teammate still has some kind of relationship with or authority over the girlfriend. I get that the teammate may think that Terry has "taken her side" by having a relationship her, but he should grow the fuck up.

eumaas wrote:I figure this can be a thread for ethics-related news stories in general. I'm starting off with ol' JT, though.

101Walterton wrote:Yes, never shit on your mates it's unforgiveable, hence the reaction.

That you frame this in terms of his betraying his friend rather than his betraying his wife is interesting to me, and a nice branching point for a little moral reasoning.

Please don't bring me into this or read anything into my post above. It was written in response to the Wayne Bridge scenario and no I doubt Wayne Bridge gave Terry's missus a second thought.

101Walterton wrote:

eumaas wrote:I figure this can be a thread for ethics-related news stories in general. I'm starting off with ol' JT, though.

101Walterton wrote:Yes, never shit on your mates it's unforgiveable, hence the reaction.

That you frame this in terms of his betraying his friend rather than his betraying his wife is interesting to me, and a nice branching point for a little moral reasoning.

Please don't bring me into this or read anything into my post above. It was written in response to the Wayne Bridge scenario and no I doubt Wayne Bridge gave Terry's missus a second thought.

Eh? I'm not condemning or judging you or anything. I just thought it was interesting. I am 100% value neutral on this, despite being in Chelsea's corner. All I was looking to do is branch off a thread on the topic of ethics in general just using this as the branching point. Not trying to entrap you or anything! It's just a survey.

Are you saying you'd view both offenses as equal?

Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

eumaas wrote:

101Walterton wrote:

eumaas wrote:I figure this can be a thread for ethics-related news stories in general. I'm starting off with ol' JT, though.

101Walterton wrote:Yes, never shit on your mates it's unforgiveable, hence the reaction.

That you frame this in terms of his betraying his friend rather than his betraying his wife is interesting to me, and a nice branching point for a little moral reasoning.

Please don't bring me into this or read anything into my post above. It was written in response to the Wayne Bridge scenario and no I doubt Wayne Bridge gave Terry's missus a second thought.

Eh? I'm not condemning or judging you or anything. I just thought it was interesting. I am 100% value neutral on this, despite being in Chelsea's corner. All I was looking to do is branch off a thread on the topic of ethics in general just using this as the branching point. Not trying to entrap you or anything! It's just a survey.

Are you saying you'd view both offenses as equal?

No I am not saying anything.

101Walterton wrote:Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

Not sure how that entitles him a say as to whose penis she allows into her vagina now that he's opted out.

101Walterton wrote:

eumaas wrote:

101Walterton wrote:

eumaas wrote:I figure this can be a thread for ethics-related news stories in general. I'm starting off with ol' JT, though.

101Walterton wrote:Yes, never shit on your mates it's unforgiveable, hence the reaction.

That you frame this in terms of his betraying his friend rather than his betraying his wife is interesting to me, and a nice branching point for a little moral reasoning.

Please don't bring me into this or read anything into my post above. It was written in response to the Wayne Bridge scenario and no I doubt Wayne Bridge gave Terry's missus a second thought.

Eh? I'm not condemning or judging you or anything. I just thought it was interesting. I am 100% value neutral on this, despite being in Chelsea's corner. All I was looking to do is branch off a thread on the topic of ethics in general just using this as the branching point. Not trying to entrap you or anything! It's just a survey.

Are you saying you'd view both offenses as equal?

No I am not saying anything.

OK. You don't have to participate in the thread if you don't want to. I just thought the whole situation raised some interesting ethical questions. Again, I am totally neutral on this one.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

101Walterton wrote:Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

Not sure how that entitles him a say as to whose penis she allows into her vagina now that he's opted out.

Terry knew full well what he was doing and from your post I would suggest you aren't aware of what that was.

101Walterton wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

101Walterton wrote:Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

Not sure how that entitles him a say as to whose penis she allows into her vagina now that he's opted out.

Terry knew full well what he was doing and from your post I would suggest you aren't aware of what that was.

I guess I'm a little confused about the whole affair and am admittedly ignorant about some of the particulars? Could you elaborate on this?

101Walterton wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

101Walterton wrote:Before you debate you do know Vanessa Perroncel is not just Bridge's ex girlfriend she is also the mother of his 3 year old son.

Not sure how that entitles him a say as to whose penis she allows into her vagina now that he's opted out.

Terry knew full well what he was doing and from your post I would suggest you aren't aware of what that was.

We're not talking about the code between teammates here. I understand these codes. I'm saying that the code is nonsense because it fundamentally objectifies women, it turns them into property owned in perpetuity by the athlete. That kind of mindset is seriously fucked up.

Bridge is both friends and teammates (on the England team) with Terry. Bridge splits with his girlfriend (the mother of his child). Terry ends up (not immediately, but within a short amount of time) having an affair with Bridge's ex. Then he tries to tamp down the press on it. It gets out, and rather than resign and leave the team, he remains but his captaincy is stripped. Then Bridge quits the team.

There's some other shit, but in broad outlines, that's the picture.

The wife is far more wronged than the teammate in my opinion. If she was a current girlfriend, then equally wronged.

I would say that John Terry is under no moral obligation to his teammate, beyond some consideration of social grace in the handling of all this. To assume moral obligation necessarily means that the ex-boyfriend has some say in the life of his ex-girlfriend, which he does not (regardless of whether they have a child together). It necessarily treats her as property.

Obviously, Terry has some kind of obligation to his wife, but eumaas explained that this kind of behavior is a pattern with Terry so what that obligation is probably depends on what kind of understanding the two of them have. Which is their business, not ours.

The ex-girlfriend and the wife are, apparently, friends to some extent and so the ex-girlfriend may have had some moral obligation there. Again, that exact relationship is unclear and known only to them, which would vary what that obligation meant.

So, to me it seems there are moral issues and obligations here but not between the two teammates.

And, obviously, it's really none of our business in the end.