[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by tony20009

The issue I have with it has nothing at all to do with how many PSI the ball was under inflated or what the consequence of the under inflation was.

The issue is that there is a clear and simple game rule regarding the ball pressure, the teams are entrusted to comply with that rule, and one or more Patriots employees willfully sought to defy the rule for sole purpose of providing the Patriots with an edge.

Clearly the practical implications and consequences of the under inflation are none. It's the tacit ethical and moral statements of the act of willfully defying the rules of a sport and the punishment that riles my dander. Quite simply, there's nothing sporting about that sort of behavior.



Exactly.

Yes, spygate (the Plame Affair?) had much more serious practical implications/outcomes. But practical ends and a culture's (nation, city, neighborhood, company, family, group, etc.) ethical/moral values can't be compared such that they can be deemed more or less important than one another.

Of course, where one stands on consequentialism vs. deontology (http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html) determines how one will feel about the cheating. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/) I'm sure you can plainly see that regarding cheating in a football game, I am squarely a deontologist. Mind you, I don't always take that position. Regarding the Plame Affair, I'm far more consequentiallist.

Why the dichotomy? Well, that's where the practical considerations come into play for me. Where the practical concerns are few and/or of minor import, I'm likely to be consequentialist. I think it's safe to say that there really wasn't any worthy practical outcome to have been obtained from willfully violating a very clear rule of a game, a rule, moreover, that one is trusted on one's own devices, in other words "honor bound," to follow. Thus on the matter of the cheating, my ethical compass aligns with deontological principles.

All the best.

LOL. But, then you have no issue with Hillary Clinton keeping Government e-mails on her private server and are willing to elect her President of the United States. Wasn't it you who wrote a few weeks ago that real leaders get to decide which rules they should follow and which they shouldn't? Does not using a private e-mail account that is easily manipulated to obfuscate the truth about philanthropic donations to the Human Fund and any quid pro quo resulting there from, account for at least any tiny implication about tacit ethical and moral behavior. Come on Man.

LFOL.