The Ethical And Moral Dilemma Faced By A Basketball Player In His Essay.

I am a basketball player, considered to be talented by many. My high school team reached the playoffs and then continued all the way to the city championship game. Due to that, I had to miss my school’s basketballpractises and one or two weeks of practice. I was grateful when the coach of the team provided me with a break of coming out for the team. My older brother have been in the varsity team for more than three years now, and because of that the coach was aware of the family and assumed I would follow my brother’s lead.However, I have never played in the baseball league prior to this and did not expect of getting a lot of on-field time. Moreover, the team had already selected a solid line-up consisting of experienced players. I decided I just had to be patient and earn my position in the team with hard work. And because of that I was stunnedwhen the coach declared the starting line-up for the first league game: I was selected to start play at third base.

I instantly felt disordered, then uncomfortable, then guilt-ridden. I felt disordered since the coach had never witnessed me playing. I was uncomfortable and guilt-ridden since it was a believable fact to everyone that the coach might have taken this decision built on the ground of my athletic repute and his association with my older brother. I did consider myself of being a team player. I even knew the other third baseman – a player who was strong, skilful and never missed a day’s practice.I was sure that the other baseman was a deserving starter. He regardedevery one of his teammates and saw himself through their eyes.He felt miserable, that much I understood. Without making any eye contact with his coach or any of his team mates, he walked straight to his position.

After the game was over I called my brother and told him about the situation, also mentioning that I am considering asking the coach to let me step down from the position and join the team only when I have earned my position in a manner that was just for the rest of the team.To this, my brother refused. He instead asked me to seize the opportunity as it is supposedly the only way to achieve my dreams without giving up a big chance. He also mentioned about putting in a good word for me and that I should not ruin it.

I felt like I was trapped. I judged the situation and thought that if I kept silent about it I would be risking the team’s respect for me. On the other hand, if I came forward, I would be risking the chance for my athletic career to move forward and my relationship with the coach. It was difficult and time was short for taking any decision, as I had to do it before the next game. I finally took the decision of coming forward, as I understood that the opposite action would have risked a lot of things, and not just personal associations. It was a team concern, as the team had to perform well, which I did not want to jeopardize with my inexperience. It was a risk I took, and I am glad I took it. The coach was shocked in the beginning, thinking I am mad for saying this and refusing to go ahead with the offer of a lifetime. However, he understood my point and even accepted that he took a wrong decision by letting this happen, and it should have been him taking this decision. He was proud of me and my honesty, blessing me that I would go a long way and achieve great heights of success. The other team members were proud of me and appreciated my honesty and bravery.If I had to rate my decision I would definitely give myself a 9 or a 10, as I was extremely satisfied with my decision. I think it was the right thing to do, both on a personal and professional level.

Part 2: Analysis

The ethical or moral dilemma discussed in part 1 appeals to a lot of different types of criticisms. From Aristotle’s Perspective Of Virtue Ethics, our own particular fulfilment (or "flourishing") is a complete target that we should progress and that we should make sense of how to have affinities and carry on in ways that incite our own particular happiness. We can understand what rehearses cause euphoria through our past direct and we can make sense of how to be sensitive to particularities in each situation. In case of the discussed situation in part 1, Aristotle’s views apply as it matches with the standpoint that actions should be taken to bring happiness for our own happiness and satisfaction. Therefore, the decision taken in part 1 brought happiness for the involved individual, making it sensitive and morally acceptable (Vaughn 2015).

The action taken in part 1 matches the most with Stoic Virtue Ethics, which states that bona fide great feelings and thoughts tend to incite fitting sentiments and exercises. It fights that virtue is a conclusive regard that revokes each and every other regard and that true (or all around pondered) evaluative feelings and insights tend to give us appropriate sentiments and exercises. We can slant toward whatever is critical to be virtuous.Stoic beliefs believed that the appropriate actions can be directed by the proper faith and justified belief, and having a virtue would be of great value. Stoics majorly believe in a universal reason, the morally correct thing to do, even if that dulls individual emotions. They say our morals and instincts guide us in the direction of the preferable by means of the provided sense (Broad 2014).

The situation in part 1 calls for another normative ethical approach – Utilitarianism. This concept is based upon an even simpler concept – what is right or wrong can be decided by conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. This belief strictly believes that right actions are those that result in good consequences.Some vibe that fantastic yearnings is awesome and obstructing longings is appalling, praiseworthy utilitarians deduce that happiness is incredible and continuing is dreadful, and pluralists assume that there are different regular stock that legitimacy progressing. Utilitarianism doesn't independent or engage pride. It isn't on the whole correct to fiendishness others to benefit yourself in light of the way that everyone numbers (Hollander 2016).That is why, the elder brother though that it would not harm anyone if his younger brothers gets a chance in the team. He did not think about the other baseman, who might be suffering.

Three theories were discussed in an analytical format in part 2: Aristotle’s Perspective of Virtue Ethics, Stoic Virtue Ethics and Utilitarianism.One theory that gave me immense happiness about taking that decision was Stoic Virtue Ethics. It says that we have an inspiration to watch out for others both truly and through movement, which exhibits the way that controlling others is ideal.The decision taken in part 1 required courage, which this theory states I had.The ancient Stoics assumed that quality was a nonappearance of fear. We can be attentive and jump at the chance to live well without fearing passing or losing our external goods. The Stoics assumed that the fear of death relied on upon a wrong conviction that passing is a malice (notwithstanding the way that it is dis-perfect).It required courage to step down from the position and open up about the concern. However, the feeling that this is the virtuous thing to do backed the decision. It led to appreciation and respect from peers, which are appropriate forms of emotions (Besser and Slote 2015).

The Utilitarianism theory made me feel that the decision I took was wrong at one point of time, and made me less happy overall. What I could not see in the situation, my brother did. He believed that this is the moment for me, the right time to seize the opportunity in hand and make a career for myself. It was really a lifetime opportunity for me (Sheng 2012). However, I looked on the other side of the coin and understood that every situation in our lives cannot be judged by its materialistic value. Certain values are virtue-related. Even though the utilitarian perspective was extremely appealing, my decision bent towards virtue ethics.Valiance is fundamental for moral quality since people must will to do what they acknowledge will be right even at an individual cost (Campbell 2016). Every so often settling on the best decision requires altruism. Therefore, in future if I face any similar situation, or in situations where I have to decide and choose between two benefits, I would always choose something that would agree with my virtues, beliefs and moral compass. The reason would be simple: it is the right thing to do.

References

Besser, L.L. and Slote, M. eds., 2015. The Routledge companion to virtue ethics. Routledge.

Broad, C.D., 2014. Five types of ethical theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Campbell, T.D., 2016. The legal theory of ethical positivism. Routledge.

Hollander, S., 2016. Ethical Utilitarianism and The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Adam Smith in Relation to Hume and Bentham. Eastern Economic Journal, 42(4), pp.557-580.

Sheng, C.L., 2012. A new approach to utilitarianism: A unified utilitarian theory and its application to distributive justice (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.

Vaughn, L., 2015. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company.

Besser, L.L. and Slote, M. eds., 2015. The Routledge companion to virtue ethics. Routledge.

Ford, R.C. and Richardson, W.D., 2013. Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands.

Honneth, A., 2014. Disrespect: the normative foundations of critical theory. John Wiley & Sons.

Hursthouse, R., 2013. Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA, 645.

Nussbaum, M.C., 2013. The therapy of desire: Theory and practice in Hellenistic ethics. Princeton University Press.

Shapiro, J.P. and Stefkovich, J.A., 2016. Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge.