Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Ten

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

1. Should the PGA be required to allow Casey Martin to use a golf cart in tournament play?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (85)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 12:30 am

Required by who? And for what reason? Golf carts did not exist when golf was invented - and unless walking is eliminated altogether from the sport and everyone rides in golf carts during tournaments, requiring exceptions for some players and not others would seem to undermine the idea that the competition was "fair" for all.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 1:16 pm

Why the court got involved in something this trivial as golf is beyond me. Like the US congress getting involved with hearings on steroid use in the baseball. I can't comprehend their involvement in the first place. In as far as my opinion, I think as a culture we are P.C. crazy. So what's next, wheel chairs in the NBA, and the NFL?

(richardsmith) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 1:59 am

I think it's unfair to allow him to use a golf cart. They should allow him to use a wheelchair. Then it would be fair. And I'm not sure - but does the PGA go to some courses where NO-ONE is allowed to use a cart? I thought maybe Augusta, but I aint no expert. Maybe they wouldn't allow him to use a wheel-chair either. If not a wheel-chair, then maybe some sort of wheeled-brace that he could fit to his bad leg. He could push himself around with his one good leg. Nobody could claim that was an unfair advantage.

Suppose I'm the Grand Chief Poo-Bah of the PGA and you're Judge-Whoever-You-Are. And you say "you have to let him use a cart!". And I say, "OK, well, next year there won't BE any PGA - I'm sick of it anyway". And I just cancel the whole thing and nobody gets to play. I take my sticks and my balls and I go home. You spoilt it for everyone, Casey. Nice work. What happens then? Are you going to make us play golf next, to accomodate Mr Martin's desire to compete?

My point is that the PGA is ultimately a private activity - it's not a function of the state. If I set up an annual Hopping Race and it takes off, gets really popular and lots of sponsorship etc. etc. I'm not going to like it if the Supreme Court comes along and tells me I have to let people walk the course.

But if the principal is supported by precedent then I want you to know that I have the reflexes, tactical nous and mental tenacity to be a world-class professional cyclist. But man, am I lazy. I think it's genetic. I've got the smarts, I've got the shorts.... if we could only put a motor on that back wheel to compensate for my beer-gut, I think I could be a contender. Think of it as levelling the field.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 5:16 pm

The poor quality of your writing would dissaude most from your argument. Don't bother taking a Harvard course if you plan to trivialize the discussion. Take your stream of consciousness jibberish to another playing field.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 6:06 pm

Like you're taking a Harvard course, fancypants-judger! Oh, and nice pun, douche....

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 24, November 2009, 2:55 pm

You can't even reply without being vulgar and that diminishes your argument. You may impress some with your verbal bullying, but it demeans you as a person. Arguments should be more intellectual than brash is they are to be convincing.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 12, December 2009, 12:28 pm

It seems to me that an activity is a part of a sport only in so much as being bad or good at it effects the performance. This is why there is an important difference between being unable to walk while playing basketball vs. being unable to walk while playing golf. As an example, if someone had the habit of tripping over their own feet, they would apriori be bad basketball players, but this is not true about their ability to play golf (they may be _slow_ golfers, but it wouldn't effect their ability to compete).

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 11:26 am

So Casey physically got a bum deal and we all empathise. The supreme court probably decided to let him ride because his argument was based on a specific legal disability act. The act was intended, once again, to manipulate reality to make things equal, fair. Isnt it a shame that
our universe does not recognize equality or fair as laws. We sure are struggling to create new political laws and applying them universally. Golf is a game which became a profitable garden with its own growing rules. Casey wanted a carrot and found a way to get it by having a higher authority change the rules just for him. Is that a "thumbs up" to Casey? Its interesting that so many young people who dont play or even understand anything about the game are none-the-less willing to make strong declarative statements as to its essence. I find that bizarre.
Dwain
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 3:33 pm

I agree with Dwain and to extend the argument still farther contend that walking is not only an integral portion of the game but omittiong it for some players does give those players an unfair advantage by lessening the arduousness associated with the walking. I can no longer participate in this activity because my heart condition has made it too hard for me specifically due to the walking portion of the game. The PGA Tournament has a set standard and if a person hopes to participate as an equal contender then that person should have to meet those requirements. Any aexceptions for anyone sets up an unfairness to those that must meet them otherwise. Richard
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 4:37 pm

"Petitioner's evidence included the testimony of a number of experts, among them some of the greatest golfers in history. Arnold Palmer,13, Jack Nicklaus,14, and Ken Venturi,15, explained that FATIGUE CAN BE A CRITICAL FACTOR in a tournament, particularly on the last day when psychological pressure is at a maximum."

If "fatigue" is a significant factor in making golf an "athletic sport" that, suggested by petitioners, then I expect to see the PGA disallow the use of caddies (Aristotle's slaves doing the "menial" tasks) and require the players to carry their own bags-- no wheeled bag carts allowed.
Then let's see which of these mainly white, mainly middle-aged PGA golfers are the real athletes!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 5:16 pm

...so are you offering us a "straw man" or a "red herring" to assist in the discussion at hand er at foot? I often confuse the two. Dwain

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 12:16 am

That's a good idea (about the golfers having to not only walk but also carry their own clubs) - but it probably won't catch on....

(RMax304823) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 10:47 pm

Pretty neat observation.

I'd have thought that walking was a strictly minor part of the game, one with no consequences, kind of like the color of the suits worn by Olympic swimmers.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, July 2010, 5:24 pm

As much as carrying your own clubs in a golf tournament would contribute to the "athleticism" of the sport, I believe that the tire of arm strength would be too great to efficiently swing the club. Isn't it a game of finesse?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 11:39 pm

If fatigue's a critical factor, the question then is whether the degree, or kind, of leverage is "fair" and who has the right to define this i.e. is it a competition of the precision of club use or is walking an integral part of the sport? Who determines this? The PGA? Or is it something eked out over time by the practices of players and evolution of game strategy? Can any evolution occur outside game rules that isn't uniform? Josef
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 1:42 am

There is a tendency to view Aristotle in black
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 1:43 am

There is a tendency to view Aristotle in black and white terms and I believe this to be a mistake. For the protest that we cannot agree on the purposes of things so cannot determine what is just for it, Aristotle has answered that coming together and discussing what the purpose of a thing is and what justice comes from that is exactly what mankind does best, so exult in that. It would be base to come up with a set of rules for justice. Rather, justice should always be discussed and a balance should be found that perhaps perfectly suits all of the differently perceived purposes of a thing.

Similarly, the argument that if I am best suited to be the world's best janitor but do not wish to be a janitor, would be answered by Aristotle that if it requires coercion to make you do janitorial services then it is not your nature to be a janitor. Don't get wound up with Aristotlean justice being rules. Apply common sense to them.

Oh, and moderation in all things.

I need to go back to find out where this big hang-up on freedom came from. If we require absolute freedom (to include freedom from responsibility) for any system of justice, I feel that we have little in common with many philosophers.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 8:17 am

To 1:43 Great post, way beyond the specifics of a tired old casey. And your quest is a good one to. I would like to hear what you come up with. Are we just lazy and find it too hard to work through each event but rather want to apply a general catch all rule (precedent)? My interest would also include the development of WHO gets to debate and who gets to vote and who not.
Dwain

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 1:44 am

I believe that the PGA should allow Casey to use a cart, but not because it is 'fair', but because he is still fundamentally demonstrating his excellence in the game of golf, that is, by performing the necessary skills in order to compete for the honour. If he is so good at the game to even be capable of entering into such a tournament, then they should allow him to compete. In terms of the debate about what golf is fundamentally about, a teleological reasoning could solve this, for the honors are not received because of how one "walked the course," but by how many times the player hit the ball before it went into the hole. "Walking the course" while a traditional way of presenting the game of golf, is actually an issue that remains on the periphery of the game itself. Indeed, as stated by another contributor, the fatigue is more psychological, and Casey would be party to this as well.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 9:30 am

Yes, Casey should be able to use a cart. It's fair in that Golf is not measured as an Athletic sport. A winner is not determeined by who can walk farther, run faster, or some other achievement in physicality, rather it is a test to determine dexterity and precision.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 7:59 am

Thats because golf is a complex sport. using the "what is measured" rule could be good for running competitions etc. But golf?
Lets say soccer. Would you say, that the ability to pass the ball correctly and accurately isnt one of the essential parts of the game, because the result is decided by the number of goal's and not passes? Would you say that being able to run fast isnt crucial for football, because the point is to get the ball where it is to be put and not just run fast?

The same thing applies to golf. Its not only about putting the ball into the hole. Its also about getting to place, from where you can strike the ball. In basket ball, not only do you need to throw accurately - you also have to be able to create a situation, when a throw is possible. Otherwise, basketball players would be just put in a line and throw the ball...

To conclude, in my opinion many sports are more than just the sum of activieties you do to accomplish something in them. the pentathlon is a good example. Would it be fair to give someone disabled a motor for the running part, because he's quite good at the rest and he wants to compete with the best?

(DIATTA) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 4:36 am

It was quite interesting to hear some of the arguments in the Casey Martin case. However, the class failed to realize that like in any society or any organization or any game, there are rules; rules that regulate the society, the organization or the game and these rules must be obeyed and followed by all participants. Although those with physical challenges and those who don’t feel like walking choose a golf cart, the ability to walk the course from one hole to another is part of the game and requires some physical effort as the aspect of the course -uphill, downhill, grass, sand, and so forth- and the distance between the holes make the game more challenging. Your legs get tired from walking the course following your ball, specially if you are hitting the ball all over the course in a very sunny day; consequently you can experience difficulties standing up and concentrating, you can lose your focus to hit the ball or hit it to the wrong direction, which could increase your number of strokes and the object of the game is to have the fewest possible strokes. So if Casey is allowed to use a cart, he’ll have an unfaire advantage -even if it doesn‘t guarantee that he‘ll win- over the other players since he’ll be using less energy or making no effort to go to his ball and hit the ball; it will be like starting fresh at each hit. Moreover if he’s permitted to use a cart, can any other player choose to crawl, be carried, or get a piggyback to his ball? It’s almost like saying the short basketball players who can’t dunk, should be allow to wear special shoes that will help them jump higher since they are not tall enough or can’t jump high enough to reach the basket like some other players. The Casey Martin case leads to preferential treatment and spoils the spirit of the game and the competitiveness in golfing. Hence he should not be allowed to use a cart. If he feels that he’s not capable to compete in the same conditions as all other players, he’s not qualified to play in their category then.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 10:39 am

Hand eye coordination is the defining skill required to be competitive at golf. It requires a short burst of physical exertion to execute the competitive act. Unlike games such as basketball, golf regardless of whether viewed as a sport or not does not require walking to commit the competitive act. It is not a naturally built in requirement that success depends upon like running back and forth on a basketball course or football field. Those games are predicated on physical prowess and the ability to run is directly associated with success. The rule restricting golf carts seem to serve no natural purpose to the competitive act in golf and seems to be nothing more than a rule made on the whims of the rule makers. Does this not interfere with the liberties of those who have that ability to compete? The rule may not have been made for any malicious reasons but still has the effect of preventing certain types of people from participating in the game who would otherwise excel in it. Except for this, it seems like a rule that serves no real purpose to the game itself. It seems as petty as me inviting all my friends to play card games at my house with the condition that everyone plays standing up. Why should it matter? It would only serve to exclude any friends who may have severe arthritis or back pain. If one player is able to use a golf cart all players can use a golf cart. The choice to walk or ride would be, as in so many other sports, part of competitive strategy on the part of the players themselves.

Personally I believe the rules we impose on ourselves as a whole should be geared as often and as fairly as possible to promote individual improvement and success (easier said than done). According to Aristotle’s stated view, I think it’s reasonable to think that with Aristotle’s level of intelligence he could manage a fast food restaurant far better than many. If he did he might be considered a natural at it. Of course the job might take up so much time and effort that he may never be afforded the opportunity to think about, organize and publish the writings that we have the benefit of drawing on today. Boxing people in is not fair to the individuals and is not good for society or humanity as a whole. Where is there honor in cultures, beliefs or political systems that box people in?

I love the discussions and welcome any comments.

Rick (The Barnacle) Fern
reply

(RMax304823) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 10:53 pm

I suppose it could be argued that the game of golf really consists of a set or rules regarding means, goals, equipment, and so forth, and that it transcends the qualities of any of its participants.

Maybe this ideal, superorganic conception of golf should be called "golf", with quotation marks.

Here is this network of ideas, a social fact. It has nothing to do with individuals. You either meet the unchanging qualifications or you don't.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, July 2010, 10:41 pm

I concur. While in some cases it can lead to the exclusion of certain people from the sport or apparantly "unfair" rulings, any rules that are associated with how the players must act in a sport must be considered an intrinsic part of the sport. It is the sum of all of the necessary actions that comprises a sport and the inability to accomplish one of them (regardless of how well one can do the others) means that one is not eligable to compete. For example, a person with one leg cannot play professional soccer, no matter how well he can kick with his one leg, as he cannot run unassisted. No exception can be made here, as it is the ability to complete all of the actions necessary to play a sport that makes one eligable, not the ability to do just the one that some consider to be the most important or vital to the game. All must be considered of equal importance, regardless of their respective roles within the game itself.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, October 2010, 5:29 pm

Regarding the appropriate rules for PGA golf, shouldn't these things be considered proprietary? Where do rules for any game come from? Certainly not Rawls' veil of ignorance where everyone sat around, ignorant of their own ability to play golf, to try to come up with a set of rules that are "fair." Rather, it's apparent that these rules evolved over time by those who "own" the game. They may be changed to improve the game, but only by those who own the game. The rules of any game are arbitrary. One could suggest numerous rules in the game of baseball that seem incidental to the game (rules concerning base stealing, for example), yet militate against certain people who don't have certain physical abilities, yet we don't expect the rules to be changed just to accommodate these. It's interesting to note that sport is one area of society where affirmative action seems not to apply. One "makes the team" because of skills that are game specific according to rules set by those who own the game, not because of skin color, wealth, social class, or anything else. No one advocates diversity on the team.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 10:53 am

All could use a cart; however,while equitable a televised game could become quite elongated.

So, does that bring us to conduct professional games like professional marathons (like Boston's)? Does the PGA now organize professional games solely for those who "choose" to use a cart?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 7:43 pm

Perhaps physically "handicapped" golfers allowed to use carts need to have scores "handicapped" as well.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 2:30 pm

All of the aforestated are a lot of garbage. The fact is that the rules by which the PGA conducts the tournament is ,"no Golf Carts"! This applied to all serves to put the same physical stress equally on
"ALL". If I choose to play basketball with the Pros and can not compete because of my lack of physical ability then I am out of the competition, period. In short ,I do not belong in that league. Walking around a golf course is strenuous and does require the use of energy which is depleting. Just because someone is physically unable to even try to do this does not mandate that others who can, should be penalized unfairly competitively. Changing the game and /or the rules to allow this disabled individual to participate unfairly is ridiculous and detracts from the idea of the competition. I do not care what Aristotle thinks .
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 7:42 pm

There are shooting competitions where the use of all sorts of stabilizing equipment is allowed. While this may represent the essence of shooting (hitting the target), it is neither as interesting to watch or difficult to be as good as a biathlon competition in which shooters have to cross country ski between targets.

U.S. Marines are required to qualify with a M16 rifle from standing, kneeling, and prone positions. What they can hit changes a LOT once they are required to wear a gas mask and run from position to position instead of taking their time to calmly set up before taking a shot.

Walking (especially if not required to carry their clubs) may not seem like much, but golf is more than just swinging at balls or knocking them into holes. That's what driving ranges, putting greens, and even miniature golf courses are for.

(DanielAyer) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 2:56 pm

I do not think that the PGA should be forced to make accommodations for people with a physical limitation if they do not wish to. The student who argued that teleological arguments will not settle this debate is correct. The problem with teleology is that there is no obvious purpose to things. We assign purpose to those things which we encounter or create. The PGA has assigned golf a teleology which deems walking as intrinsic to the sport, and that is their right. If people object they can petition the PGA through appealing to the people whom the PGA is courting: their audience.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 6:27 pm

The PGA should be free to make their own rules, I should be free to go to the driving range and mini-putt-putt, but not walk in between, and Curves for Women should be free to exclude me from their sexist gyms. I'll go to a different one.

Why not change NBA basketball to a game of HORSE, or baseball to the batting cage--those are the essential aspects of the sports, and I could probably go pro. And I could beat the Chinese olympic table tennis team at beer-pong... it's not fair that the Supreme Court doesn't make them play beer-pong in my basement so I can beat them and have the honor of being the best at table tennis.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 7:26 pm

You might be on to something here. But rather than attempting to change existing sports/organizations/rules, just start your own sport/competition. What people seem to be overlooking with sports is that what often matters more than those who compete is those who watch, bet, and PAY for the competition. THEY are the ones who REALLY decide what's worth allowing, encouraging, or preventing.

Sports may require strategy and skill to excel but sports are still basically entertainment. Baseball and basketball are more entertaining with opposing players (rather than just watching players sink baskets or hit balls alone). The ONLY reason there are professional sports is because people will pay to watch. Even high school sports are about money.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority over China, but you might be able to get a beer company to sponsor you and be a pro bee-pong all-star in a league/competition of your own design - especially if they thought it'd help sell more beer.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 5:35 am

Eh.. that's a long walk, Fore!!!! PGA is a tough sport's
reply

(PlatosPupil) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 3:29 pm

I feel this should be SIMPLE. If PGA rules say Casey cannot use a cart: then he CANNOT use a cart in PGA tounaments. He is able to walk but he chooses not to (due to danger). It seems not just coersive, but actually WRONG to force a set of PGA players to change the rules for one player (or allow that player to cheat - the act of cheating remains WRONG even if his disadvantage neutralizes his ADVANTAGE from cheating). If I am an EXCELLENT boxer but would prefer for my head to be off-limits (because I am suscepttible to strokes...), must we change the rules of boxing to accomodate me? NO. (I THINK THAT EXCELLENCE AT A GAME OR SPORT IS REGULAR AND EXCEPTIONAL SUCCESS - ACHEIVED WHILE ADHERING TO THE RULES).
reply

(PlatosPupil) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 3:45 pm

For me EVERYTHING currently depends on one question. Is the depth of 'suffering' produced by ALLOWING the PGA to reject Casey (and people like him) so great that it justifies the supreme court's intervention to infringe the rights of all other players to play the game with established rules?? (At first I thought the answer was NO. But the answer is really UNDEFINABLE - I will never be able to objectively quantify suffering; unless some ingenius measuring devise is invented) We are limited to asking questions with measurable answers (by practicality) even when they are not the ideal question (also how do we know we have the ideal key question).

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 22, November 2009, 6:39 pm

My understanding was that Casey's walking would delay the game. He was capable and COULD walk the course, but others behind him would be held back and he would get charged with a delay of game penalty. thus, This would hinder others to unfair game play and disturb their game plan. Is that fair to the other players?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 23, November 2009, 11:03 am

If aristotile's belief is for the best flute player to have the best flute, then should the best bingo player always have the winnig boards?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 23, November 2009, 2:12 pm

The point that is ignored so far,is the obvious, if you are part of a society you must give up some freedom in return for the advantages of being a member like commom defense. To be totally free you must live alone in a state of nature otherwise negociate as much freedom as your society can spare
reply

(Xerex) said:

Monday 23, November 2009, 2:54 pm

First, supreme court shouldn't interfere with games like PGA in such a manner.
Second, the only just thing to do is to change the rule of the game if they let Casey in with a cart: everyone should use a golf cart.

(if you change the rules of a game like golf like this you can't be accused of doing half a job this way; ruining the game in the process then is a consequence, but that can be seen a side issue)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 24, November 2009, 12:07 pm

Why not allow major league baseball players to use performance enhancing drugs? After all, if they lack the natural talent to compete with hitters that do have the talent, isn't it fair to allow them to artificially boost their performance so that they can compete? Rubbish!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 24, November 2009, 10:10 pm

Don't get bogged down in what the Supreme Court should have done. This case was just used as an example of how you apply Aristotelian analysis to a particular fact pattern. I don't think that the Supreme Court does, can or should proceed on that basis. The question is: should our system of justice in particular, and our system of government in general operate on that basis? Decisions of the Supreme Court have that effect in some cases and not in others. In many cases, it depends on how you define and allocate justice. In a pluralistic society such as ours, justice tends to be defined in a fairly narrow way, unless certain "virtues" come to the forefront in the form of laws that promote such things as "reasonable accommodation" for Americans with disabilities.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 2, December 2009, 9:11 am

When virtues come to the forefront in the form of laws, most Americans agree with the intent. The effect of the law in society is usually contrary to any agreed upon intent. Why? Because the individuals assigned to administer the laws have substantially different intent but now with inappropriate and substantial authority to manipulate behavior and outcome.
The devil is not in the details, it's in the detailer. Dwain

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 8:38 pm

I think what Casey did was childish. I remember being little. If I asked one of my parents if I could do something and they said no, then I would ask the other one. Man would I catch hell for that. (and rightfully so)

There are alot of people with handycaps that are better at what they do than I am. In the special olympics, there are probably people that can swim faster than I can without the use of thier legs. I'd say that the field is almost even. However, I'd like to see what would happen if I tried to enter. How petty of me would it be if I took them to court?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 8:51 pm

The PGA is a buisness that depends on its viewers. They can't risk the purity of the game and risk consumers not buying in. The best flutes can go to whom ever wants them. But if they can't play to a level suitable for an audience, they should play for family and friends or hang it on their mantle.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 11:13 pm

Has anyone considered that this is not looking at the game of golf as a career option? Is it right to deny Casey his way of getting income simply because he cannot do a part of the game that is not necessarily a part of the game (I will concede that walking could be a necessary part of the game)? If walking is a necessary part of the game, then I could see (not necessarily agree with) the argument that it is fair to prevent him from competing. I wonder if people would consider it unfair if an armless basketball player put on prosthetic arms and learned to play the game with these prostheses. What if the NBA said that the arms were 'necessary to the game of basketball' because the prosthetic arms may give an advantage to the basketball player and denied this player the chance of playing. The person can compete, but the only way he can compete is with prosthetic arms. The player would most likely be denied a large amount of income in addition to whether or not it is correct to deny him simply because of prosthetic arms. Would this be wrong?
reply

(docslip) said:

Friday 11, December 2009, 4:31 pm

I apologise: A replacement for earlier post with error. Hillary not Hemingway.
The particular golf course has 18 holes which have been assigned a measure of proficiency based upon a set of pre-established rules or guidelines. Were the holes assigned the level of PAR 5 assigned this value by a pro golfer walking or riding"? Certain levels of merit, if not world records, are achieved or realized during such a prestigious event and to excel or win over others in fair competition is the sum of the skills and endurance in the circumstances. To ride this PGA event in a motorized cart is to chop 10,000 feet off the top of Mount Everest, climb it and then claim to be in the same league as Sir Edmund Hillary.
reply

(gert) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 7:54 am

If the golf champion does not manage to win against this disabled golfer, he is not worthy to be named a champion. A more clear example would be the fastest swimmer disqualified because the person was swimming naked. Even swimming naked is a disadvantage performance wise, humans will try to bent the rules, or make them so there personal view of how a swimming contest should look like will prevail. In the end it is all about entertainment, not fairness or moral justice. That also explains Judge Judy earnings, the 21 century version of slaves fighting in a arena against lions.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 8:18 am

Oh really? The first sentence you wrote makes the disabled golfer a man not worthy mentioning, an obstacle that every true champion could easily beat. You make him only half-worthy.
But if we think of a disabled golfer as a reall threat, a real may_be_a_champion, then giving him any advantages OR compensations would be unfair. He's good enough to be the champion? Then he has to become one on his own, lets treat him normally, not specially, if he really is normal.

Im not trying to offend anyone - the contrary. I would feel offended by the gerts post starting. If i were disabled, i would not want to get benefits from pitty that people have for me. I wouldnt want pitty, only being trated normally

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, December 2009, 2:21 pm

Part of this has to do with what is considered essential and contributing to one's performance- whether PGA or other competitive endeavor (consider Olympics v ParaOlympics, or business.)

The converse is whether it is acceptable to be carried from shot to shot - say, by your caddy (or caddies - via sedan-chair or piggyback.) One's caddy frequently provides additional perspective at planning the shot or evaluating conditions. The caddy does not merely provide transportation of one's clubs (and care of same.) Why could not the caddy be invoked to carry more than one's clubs and balls?

Recall the discussion when the larger (headed) and non-wood materials were introduced to tennis. The governing board could easily have disqualified them, but their rules did not specifically preclude design changes. Similarly, golf has allowed new types of clubs, but has limited the overall size of the club face. (I am assuming there is language to preclude electronics, too.)

Thus, the real question is whether the difficulty was the mechanical means of mobility or that the mobility was not from one's one power. Would he have been permitted otherwise to use a bicycle or the like?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 10:25 pm

Disappointing that most of these posts are about golf! Would like more posts like 1.43 and reply.

What's interesting is the juxtaposition between Freedom and the Good. Aristotle says Justice means seeking the Good. Has a rights based approach to Justice (ie, justice as Freedom to choose) got us to a better place?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 8:24 am

Well now i disagree. If the aristotelean methon cant deal with a single case of golf (meaning, we cant make a fair sentance using its rules and laws) then whats the point of discussing it? If it easily fails on the golf topic, no need to look further into it - it has been already marked as not-working. This makes the argument about whats important in golf or sports, the discussion about what is honored in a particular situation (as Aristotele would want us to discuss!) important, not to say crucial

After we deal wth this issue, we can move on to other aspects of Aristoteles philosophy

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 10, January 2010, 12:24 pm

Early on in this discussion it was pointed out that the use of caddies accommodates the different in physical size of the different players. That accommodation by itself supports the court's decision to allow the use of a cart to overcome a different sort of physical difference. Of course it might be more acceptable to allow caddies to carry both the golfer and his bag?
reply

(Amarsir) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 7:07 am

I love Scalia. Always a principled, reasoned argument and never just a handful of justifications.

He brings up what it seems nobody else wants to consider: maybe it's not your right to overrule anyone here. Casey Martin has a right to play in a cart, provides he owns the course or has the permission of those who use it. But to take a position of "I think he gets enough exercise" or "I think walking is essential" complete misses the point that it DOESN'T MATTER what you or I think. It matters what the PGA thinks.

Ruling the way the court did says that the PGA doesn't have a right to define a game the way they see fit. That despite the fact they have dedicated their lives to golf and I've never played or watched a game, that their judgment is worthless. The result is not a preservation of rights, but a degradation of them.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 3:33 pm

It's similar to the issue discussed in the previous lecture - the right of private learning institutions to define their own admissions criteria. I think it's been agreed that private institutions or sporting organisations have (or should have) this right.

What makes for an interesting moral discussion is whether these organisations define their own rules in a way which is morally justifiable.

(RMax304823) said:

Thursday 4, February 2010, 7:36 pm

Scalia was on the winning side in a ruling that just opened the way for corporations and unions (including any owned by foreign investors) to contribute unlimited amounts of money directly to the campaigns of candidates they supported, including attack ads against opponents.

The principled and reasoned argument was that the ads represented free speech.

(gvb) said:

Wednesday 24, February 2010, 5:17 pm

Great point. The only people it should matter to are fans who spend money at the tour, the people who buy the merchandise, and the PGA itself since they are directly affected buy the outcome. You and I don't get a vote.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 9:51 pm

I see the debate between the Aristotle conceptions and the Rawls and Kant conceptions as both being limited in vision. Truth exists and is real; and tying justice to truth is the good. Freedom comes from knowing the truth. The truth is; that what is good; is not necessarily the ability to do whatever you please; which is one argument of the definition of freedom; but is what I believe is easily argued to be the opportunity to do what is right. In our nation's founding, the founding generation argued that the right proceeded from the good; that they mutually coalesced one another in the polis as well as all other institutions in society; they did not proceed exclusive of one another. Under such adopted infrastructure; the founding generation believed that the good would reign supreme through each free person discovering their purposed individual role in community; and exercising it for the good; society then advancing as a self-regulating good community.

I think Justice Scalia was right; that the United States did not have a reason to determine the honorifics or purpose of golf; although I can see the desire for the players to desire those attributes to be defined. I agree that the PGA; and the public; should be able to do that amongst themselves (i.e., by the PGA rules and public acceptance of the game/sport and its rules. Here is where the public needs to insert itself into the 'polis' of the game/sport of golf, for Aristotle's concept of the good being tied to involvement in the 'polis'). Here the PGA (with the players' consent) could rule "Why not"; we're for everybody; not against some. That's grace.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 23, January 2010, 1:27 pm

should the special olympics be stripped of its distinction?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, February 2010, 7:30 am

Are there particular situations that support Aristotle view of slavery and agree with Kant and Rawls? For example, the individual that is involved in a concentual B
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 9:41 pm

It's like you read my comments and then get a time machine to go back before the next time I watch an episode.

I haven't seen anyone older than 23 in 9 episodes, I mention it, then Karl Malden shows up in the audience.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, February 2010, 8:02 pm

When Aristotle said that slavery was NECESSARY, did he think nobody would notice that that is a false statement which knocks his argument off the truth table? Necessary implies that there is no possible alternative. Paying a free person to perform those tasks is a viable alternative that would have resulted in the leisure time required to attend any forum he liked. Shame on you Aristotle; as a logician you should be embaressed to voice such an argument. It sounds a lot like Thomas Jefferson to me.
I am pretty sure he would have held a different oppinion had he been a slave. That in itself makes the argument false since it does not work when coming from all points of view. If the slave doesn't agree that it is necessary the supporting statement is false making the argumet invalid.
Matilda Paxton
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 7:18 pm

The problem with Aristotle's teleological approach is that it assumes there is a wise and fair arbitrator to decide purpose. But as we know, in life, wise and fair arbitrators are hard to come by. As a practical matter, this is a death blow to the teleological approach to justice. JimK
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 10:32 pm

It is one thing to have confidence in a public good or purposes, a la Aristotle, it is quite another to insist that an entire polis must have a single purpose. Sometime it is wise to consider the proper framework within which millions of proper purposes need to be pursued and the American Founders saw to it that Americans would have such a framework without imposing a similar, identical purpose or telos on all the millions of citizens but also without denying that each of us may well have his or her own telos in life that each of us needs to discover and follow without being thwarted in this by others or government. This is not quite Aristotle but it draws on him a great deal. Just that Aristotle didn't figure on the significance of individuality and personal choice in his moral philosophy.
reply

(DIATTA) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 4:34 am

PART ONE: THE GOOD CITIZEN
It was quite interesting to hear some of the arguments in the Casey Martin case. However, the class failed to realize that like in any society or any organization or any game, there are rules; rules that regulate the society, the organization or the game and these rules must be obeyed and followed by all participants. Although those with physical challenges and those who don’t feel like walking choose a golf cart, the ability to walk the course from one hole to another is part of the game and requires some physical effort as the aspect of the course -uphill, downhill, grass, sand, and so forth- and the distance between the holes make the game more challenging. Your legs get tired from walking the course following your ball, specially if you are hitting the ball all over the course in a very sunny day; consequently you can experience difficulties standing up and concentrating, you can lose your focus to hit the ball or hit it to the wrong direction, which could increase your number of strokes and the object of the game is to have the fewest possible strokes. So if Casey is allowed to use a cart, he’ll have an unfaire advantage -even if it doesn‘t guarantee that he‘ll win- over the other players since he’ll be using less energy or making no effort to go to his ball and hit the ball; it will be like starting fresh at each hit. Moreover if he’s permitted to use a cart, can any other player choose to crawl, be carried, or get a piggyback to his ball? It’s almost like saying the short basketball players who can’t dunk, should be allow to wear special shoes that will help them jump higher since they are not tall enough or can’t jump high enough to reach the basket like some other players. The Casey Martin case leads to preferential treatment and spoils the spirit of the game and the competitiveness in golfing. Hence he should not be allowed to use a cart. If he feels that he’s not capable to compete in the same conditions as all other players, he’s not qualified to play in their category then.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 7:22 am

What Professor Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 7:23 am

What Professor Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 7:24 am

Why won't my comment post: What Professor Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 7:31 am

What Professor Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 7:31 am

Why won't my comment post: What Professor Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 2:51 am

I had a similar problem. I clearly was using the correct code. I resolved it as follows:
- Highlight your post in the editing box
- Copy it (ctrl-c or on a Mac use the command key with c). NOTE: You can paste it to Notepad, Wordpad or Text Edit to make sure you have it in case of other problems.
- REFRESH THE WEB PAGE.
- Scroll down to the editing box, click inside it till you get the editing cursor, then click ctrl-v or command-v on a Mac
- Type in the new code and it will take this time.

(scottu) said:

Tuesday 16, February 2010, 1:41 pm

I didn't hear anyone raise the objection I have. The PGA is , so far as I know, a private organization...not a government organization. So what is the government doing in making new rules for them to follow? It makes NO sense. I thought this was suppose to be a free country with a severely limited constitutional government.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 2:59 am

There's this thing... It's called the Bill of Rights... A private organization cannot violate what the SC considers rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights - or any other law (like the Americans with Disabilities Act - the statute under which the suit was brought) deemed Constitutional by the SC.

Augusta National had a rule excluding blacks as members until remarkably very recently, and barred women until even more recently, to the best of my remembrance. Both clearly violate the Civil Rights Act and other laws that the SC has upheld as Constitutional. Would you suggest that they be allowed to do that anyway?

Wherever you got the idea that this country was "suppose (sic) to [have] a severely limited constitutional government", I don't know, but I think it's time to check your facts.

(Ty) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 11:27 am

By mentioning exceptions to his argument that Slavery is necessary, and there exist people for whom slavery is their best fit in life, Aristotle provides a potent attack on his own position. Can it be that he actually acknowledged the injustice of Slavery, but lacked the courage to attack it outright? A direct attack would have met with stiff opposition in his day, and may have branded him a heretic, so perhaps he leaves it to others to follow his faulty argument to its inevitable conclusion.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 3:08 am

Your point is precisely correct and well taken. And reminiscent of EVERY philosophy propounded by authors cited in this course. When a logical contradiction - a counterexample, if you will - is presented that demonstrates the problem with their model, the contortions that are required are stunning indeed, but not very convincing.

By this same reasoning, were I a Macedonian perfectly suited to be a murderer, I should have been able to terminate this revered but horrendous thinker's life, AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. After all, would not justice have been served by me acting in accordance with the best fit in MY life?

Aristotle's model - like Kant's, like Locke's, like Bentham's - is a model, and nothing more. We use models to help us, well, model reality. But reality is not a model. Reality is reality! A model is only as good as it resembles reality. Where it fails to model reality properly, IT SHOULD BE DISCARDED AS A BAD MODEL.

That's what has been presented in this course - not thru Sandel's fault; he's an excellent presenter, but by the authors themselves - ONE BAD MODEL FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER.

After all,

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 2:44 am

I had the opportunity to play the Doral Blue course in Florida several years ago, as an amateur, and not in a tournament. In fact, it was a courtesy extended to me as a guest.

Doral is the setting of PGA events, with majors even played there upon occasion. Most of the time, however - as is the case with ALL major courses used for PGA events - the course is NOT used for tournaments or other PGA sanctioned competitive events. It is used for amateur golf, or professionals playing in a non-competitive setting.

Doral had a rule - when you played the course, YOU MUST USE A CART. Irrespective of your status with regards to the PGA, you were COMPELLED BY COURSE RULES to use a cart.

Again, this was a PGA sanctioned course. It labeled itself not only as a PGA sanctioned course, but as a "golf course".

I use this anecdote to underscore that the example used in this lecture, of the SC's ruling on the Casey Martin case, is a poor and false example, because the majority's opinion was ill informed.

They concluded that it was not the nature of golf that compels one to walk, which, given the Doral case, the PGA implicitly agrees with. But the case was NOT about the nature of golf, per se - it was about the nature of PGA Tournament events.

If the defense were to have successfully noted the definitional difference, I am quite sure this would have been an open and shut case. Does the PGA not have the right to define what constitutes a PGA Tournament? It is NOT defining the nature of golf. It is not suggesting that there are not other PGA tournament settings - such as the Senior Tour - that allow the use of carts. One might say, well, then, the very definition of what constitutes a PGA Tournament is discriminatory, violating the rights of the disabled. WEll, then - that means the Senior Tour should have been abolished by the Court, by the same reasoning, because it discriminates on the basis of age.

I have now watched 10 episodes of this course, and I must say, in almost all cases, the theories presented fail upon the same problem - one of clear definition. This is not to say that there might be a better case to demonstrate the tension between teleological and, say, utilitarian senses of justice. It is to say, however, that these models suffer from definitional vagueness in their very presentation by their proponents - be they Locke, Bentham, Kant, Aristotle, Rawls or any other mentioned.

I would like to submit that it is this poor definitional foundation that frames a prejudicial and dead-on-arrival understanding of justice to begin with. I would like to further submit that the mishmosh of contradiction and vagueness that such framing - however historical and vernerated - creates the openings for the manipulation - and miscarriage - of justice by advocate, jury and judge, alike.

Legal students out there, heed me well - if your concern really is justice, you need to break out of this unnecessary - and likely manipulated - frame of the understanding of it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, October 2010, 2:24 am

I think I agree with you. As presented, I would (in addressing this philosophical debate) prefer to just skip Kant altogether because I just find him so unconvincing that it's not even worth the time taken away from debating more sensible philosophers.

(gvb) said:

Wednesday 24, February 2010, 5:38 pm

As models go, (i know this isn't exactly what you were talking about) I use a sketch to help me make my decisions. I draw a triangle and at one axis I write FAIR. At the other two points are RIGHT and NECESSITY. The kind of person I would want to be determines where on the triangle I plot my problem. Every problem has to be written on a line. Also every problem can be one or two of these points but never all three since, what is necessary and right is never fair for all and ect.
With this specific case, changing the rules(while fair and right) can't be necessary, so why change. That's just me
reply

(gvb) said:

Wednesday 24, February 2010, 6:02 pm

It sounds as though you have a good understanding of the law. Therefore
you should know best of anyone that the law is vague on purpose because it is open for interpretation. It is interpretated by the judge or jury that oversees the case. The manipulation you speak of is the job of lawers and media. Thats the way it is and should be.
reply

(Cmramz) said:

Monday 22, March 2010, 6:52 pm

the Synopsis of this episode is the same as episode 09
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, June 2010, 11:47 am

I think what's being missed in this conversation is both the arbitrariness and the cosmetic quality of the PGA's rules. Golfers in the PGA have the same relationship to the PGA that professional football players have to the NFL. In short, they are, more or less, employees. So the question is not what is expected of golfers by the PGA and its rules; after all, the PGA is just another organization in American society and, therefore, is subject to the same laws that all other American organizations. The question is does society have the right to limit the PGA's rules to the benefit of the individuals that live within society. Various fair employment laws passed in congress say that organizations do not have the right to discriminate for the purpose of employment based on, among other things, physical disability. Since we've made discrimination for the purposes of hiring against the law, and since Casey Martin is, for all intents and purposes, an employee of the PGA, how can the PGA be allowed to discriminate based on rules that, by their very nature, are cosmetic and arbitrary.
reply

(cjvdmade) said:

Thursday 1, July 2010, 1:08 pm

I define man as an in limited liability company of rival affects and emotions. All various efforts and emotions of human beings and groups are expressed and neutralized in the money form by the operation of the universal market, which 1 metaphorically call a "Global Social Engine

Neutralization means that qualitative differences are reduced to quantified unities. "All valuations, culture-bound and of a historically different development run the risk of being swallowed by an amoral poly perspective market-process.

The last geographic obstructions and cultural historical barriers are cleared to complete this social assignment of capitalism: the "Global Dimension": as a hound less universal market not being obstructed by inconvenient moral, racial and religious remnant values. The foundation of my metaphysics therefore stands:

God = the universal market in all its indeterminacy

Cees van der Made 1989
Tilburg
The Netherlands
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, July 2010, 11:23 pm

For those interested, the supreme court's opinion and dissent are available on-line at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-24.ZS.html
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, July 2010, 5:32 pm

I think the moral question should be whether or not Martin is morally correct by using the legal system to play in a tour when he could play in another tour that is just as competitive.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, October 2010, 2:12 am

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Canadian pharmacy viagra
cialis online

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides

Up Next