It seems that every year we hear about a new player being suspended in Major League Baseball (MLB) for steroid abuse. This past season the big name bust was Melkey Cabrera of the San Francisco Giants. Cabrera was found to have high levels of testosterone which indicate steroid use, and ultimately confessed to using performance enhancing drugs. It can be said that Cabrera displayed "dirty hands" by taking the performance enhancing drugs in an effort to make himself better.
The idea of dirty hands comes from Machiavelli's, "The Prince" in which he describes that political leaders often have to make decisions that are morally incorrect, but offer the best outcome for their respective citizens. A perfect example of this is the United States and the atomic bomb. The decision to drop this bomb killed tons of people, but ended a war in which many American soldiers were fighting and dying in. Dirty hands is an unfortunate outcome of being a leader and making decisions.
Now back to something more important than politics, BASEBALL. When we see a baseball player get punished for taking steroids we instantly think, "what an idiot, why would he cheat at this great American pastime?"Well, when thinking about it from a moral standpoint it is obviously wrong, but from the perspective of Machiavelli, it might not be. If you think of each team as its own individual entity that is doing what it best for itself, it makes sense to take steroids. The current punishment for steroid abuse is 50 games for the first offense, 100 for the second offense, and a lifetime ban for the third offense. The MLB does random drug testing to search for the steroid abusers around the league, so if each team were to play the odds and allow one or two of its less essential players to take steroids they could get enough productivity before the players are caught for it to be worth it. While a risky move, it would improve the production of players and enhance the teams chance to win.
The Commissioner, Bud Selig, would not agree with this scheme however. From his prospective he looks at the MLB as a whole as his own entity (or country if we think in a political sense). That being said what is best for him is for the MLB to look like a clean and rule abiding organization that is respected by other major sports around America. That is why in 2010 he administered
3,747 random drug tests on players throughout the league. This shows that not many players are actually taking steroids since we only see a few positive tests each year.
27 players have been suspended by the MLB to this day for steroid abuse, but many others have admitted to using them, or been accused of using them.
I would like to point out that I do not think that steroid use is morally right in any sense, or that it is good for baseball. I actually feel the exact opposite. But, it is an interesting perspective to look at when thinking about what is best for the team, and what gives each team the competitive advantage.
Darren,
ReplyDeleteI would like to expand on your connection of baseball players using steroids to Machiavelli's concept of dirty hands. Through the supporting evidence of your argument, I definitely see the relationship you have drawn between the two. A baseball player who abuses performance enhancing drugs may be viewed as an individual trying to benefit his team. In terms of Machiavelli, he would be a leader who has "done bad" in order to "do good" for the welfare of his people (teammates). However, although this player may have gotten his a little dirty, does this case fully fit Machiavelli's concept?
Although I'm not much of a baseball fan, I have been to a few Detroit Tigers baseball games here and there. During those times I have noticed the roaring and cheering of the crowd when one of the star players is up to bat. Additionally, I have been observant to the number of Tigers t-shirts with popular players' names posted on the back. In conclusion, it is clear that baseball players strive for the love of their fans. Players are able to gain their title and reputation by the number of supporters they have. Evidently, the audience doesn't sit back shaking in their seats when their favorite player walks up to first base. Instead, individuals rise from their seats waving "I <3 YOU PRINCE FIELDER" signs while hooting and whistling.
Do you see where I'm heading? Machiavelli also believes leaders should be dependent on fear over love. A leader will not be able to sufficiently "do bad" in order to "do good" for his people if he is concerned of maintaining their love. It is much easier for an individual to instill fear in his people if he were to ever fail in his wrong doings. If a leader were to be loved, his failure would be hard to overcome.
Now how do you think fans feel when they discover their #1 player has been abusing steroids? Don't you think they would be heartbroken to discover the strength and talent of their player isn't natural? Although I agree with your post, I think it is important to consider other aspects to Machiavelli's dirty hands when applying real life situations to the concept. With the love of their fans, baseball players may have a hard time recovering to their legendary status, while fear would have made the process much easier.
I think the ideas in both the post as well as this first comment make evident that it depends on which group you look at, and what their particular interests are before saying whether or not Machiavelli would endorse certain actions. For instance, lets say the player can be seen as trying to rule over the fans that come to support the team he plays for. In this case, the fans clearly like winning games and seeing great plays. So is it definitely the case that the fans will be okay with their favorite players on that team taking steroids in order to help the team? It depends whether or not you assume that these fans have a preference for seeing the players succeed only on raw, natural talent even if not taking steroids results in fewer games won and less team success.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, most fans are more concerned with keeping the game how it used to be. Fans like to watch players compete on a level playing field because this allows fans to see who is truly the best.
This is why I believe the rules in baseball are in place. Outlawing steroids levels the playing field, and any baseball fan I have talked to believes that steroids would ruin the game if permitted. So in any case we need to look at what will actually make the ruled class happy. In the case of baseball players taking steroids, whether it is because it gives unequal advantages, is seen as cheating, or causes baseball to depart from tradition, I believe fans would be happier to see steroids completely eliminated. And along this view, I believe Machiavelli would agree that players should be penalized for taking steroids as doing so is not acting in the best interest of fans.
I'm also a big baseball fan, and, like you, I dislike steroid use. I thought it was interesting, though, how you put forward the idea of having mediocre players take steroids. I agree that it would be good for the team (unless they got caught telling players to cheat.) In this sense, I suppose it would constitute a case of dirty hands. I also think you are right that it does not constitute dirty hands if you view a nation as the league instead of a team. In the case of Melky Cabrera, who is pictured above, one could argue that steroids took him from mediocre to a star. Although the Giants won the world series without him, his elevated play no doubt benefited the team. It also benefited Melky Cabrera a lot (before he was caught.) I think most players who cheat and think of it as dirty hands are probably thinking of themselves as the nation to be benefited. They cheat in order to gain success and a lot of money. I also like the pictures of Bonds. Pretty crazy.
ReplyDeleteHey Darren,
ReplyDeleteIt disgust me when athletes decide to cheat by using steroids to get a competitive advantage. I agree with you that athletes that use steroids are getting their hands dirty because they're committing a moral crime, by cheating, for the betterment of their respective teams.
Also, Sarah I don't think Machiavelli relates to Prince Fielder because he is not in a position of power nor is he leader. I think Machiavelli is only referring to leaders that are seeking to rule and control people. Also, I'm a little confused, are you inferring that Prince Fielder is using steroids?