Tiger Woods

Yes, we al unmatched know the stories given to us by the news, media, and internet. tiger forest did violate and shargond his spotlight of shame and pain. True enough he was non comparabled by many, simply who dont make mistakes? As an outsider that doesnt watch golf as much, I observe that time has passed and it can be forgiven.For sake of an argument tiger has won 95 tournaments, 71 of those on the PGA Tour, including the 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2005 Masters Tournaments, 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2007 PGA Championships, 2000, 2002, and 2008 U.S. Open Championships, and 2000, 2005 and 2006 Open Championships. With his number Masters victory in 2001, Tiger became the first ever to lend adeptself all four schoolmaster major championships at the same time.He is the travel victories leader among active players on the PGA Tour, and is the c areer money list leader. non surprisingly, several of Tigers sponsors acquire now opted to abandon their conjunction with him, citing his mora l indiscretions as sufficient justification for this decision. But is this the right subject to do?Does the fact that Tiger Woods is non the high-quality person that we took him to be somehow negating the fact that he is an excellent golfer? Are we sinful of a category mistake if we suggest that Tigers sponsorships, or his opportunities to play golf, should be taken away because of his ridiculous conduct? there are two ethical drumheads at work here. The first inquire is whether one should be vindicateed in their professional life for actions in their person-to-person life. The second is whether it is morally justified to observe a boil down because of immoral behavior.I pass on here argue that the answer to the first question is no, while the answer to the second question depends on the genius of the contract. many individuals, rightly appalled by Tigers actions, have suggested that the PGA should vindicate him, perhaps by suspending him from future tournaments. in that location are two cerebrates for rejecting this suggestion. There is a strong precedent against doing so, and such a response threatens to intolerably blur the fold between the semipublic and the private sphere.Many famous sound deal have committed scandalous actions that irreparably damage their public image. Kobe Bryants recent Colorado rape trial is a prime lawsuit of this. But no one suggested that Kobe not be allowed to play basketball. deceit Johnson contracted HIV through extramarital sex, but he was interact with warmth and benevolence rather than scorn. Michael Jordan had a notorious gambling problem, but he is hailed as the greatest player of all time. Why should Tiger be treated differently? There is a more universal concern with abandoning this precedent.Golf is Tiger Woodss job. There is no expectation, or requirement of employment stating that one must be a good person in order to be a good golfer. We operate to think that whether one ought to be retaine d in a point job position depends on whether they are qualified for the job, rather than whether they are a generally decent person. Suggesting that Tiger, Kobe, Magic, or Jordan should not be allowed to mesh their profession in virtue of their personal indiscretions would amount to a grotesque kind of discrimination.From the standpoint of employment qualifications, ones sexual behavior is usually an irrelevant consideration. This brings me to the second consideration concerning punishment in ones professional life based on actions in ones personal life. We tend to think that there is an important detachment between ones public life and ones private affairs. When one is a celebrity like Tiger Woods, this line is blurred considerably, and one might claim that the loss of this distinction is the damage one pays for fame.However, this imposes an arbitrary constraint on a persons individual freedoms. If one has a right to the maintenance of a public and a private sphere, the fact t hat a person is famous is not obviously a reason for violating this right. The second ethical question elevated by the Tiger Woods affair scandal concerns whether it is ethical to break a professional contract based on a persons actions in their personal life. This is a complicated question, and I will limit the discussion to one pertinent facet of it.If Tiger Woods was hired as an endorser because of his public image and persona, and not entirely because he is a good golfer, his sponsors are justified in abandoning their professional relationship for his personal actions. Consider the nature of the contract in question. Companies have hired Tiger because they believe an association with him will help them to parcel out their products. Tigers role in the contract is presumably to take note himself as a positive force for this purpose.If Tiger has agreed to this lineament of relationship, anything he does that hinders his effectiveness as a marketing tool would be a violation of the contract. While we have reason not to punish Tiger professionally, as a golfer, for what he has done in his personal life, we also have reason to punish him professionally, as an endorser, for the same actions. righteousness ethics is somewhat helpful in understanding this distinction. Tigers extramarital affairs do not make him a questioning golfer, but they do make him a bad endorser.Different standards are at work when we evaluate Tiger the golfer and when we evaluate Tiger the endorser, and lone(prenominal) in the latter case does his personal conduct make a relevant difference. We have thus reached an interesting conclusion. First, standards of personal conduct are only relevant to ones professional life if the nature of ones profession dictates as much. This leaves us with a assorted evaluation of Tiger Woods. It seems we can endorse his lost endorsements, but not any punishment from the PGA, for his extramarital affairs. It also helps us to understand how separate ce lebrity scandals have been perceived.While Magic, Kobe, and Jordan are still good basketball players up to now though they are not particularly good people, someone like Bill Clinton harms his credibility as President in virtue of contrasted personal conduct, because appropriate personal conduct is part of the Presidents job description (or so it would seem). Our own mixed reaction to Tiger suggests that he is somewhat unique, a mixture of celebrity and quasi-statesman that we want to produce to a higher standard of conduct, despite having no good reason to do so. References (PGA TOUR, Inc. , 2010) http//www. pgatour. com/players/00/87/93/