The Sports Ethicist

Distinctions between the external and internal are common throughout philosophy, and sports philosophy is no exception. And though I think in many instances these distinctions are overdrawn, I’ve been thinking about yet another external/internal distinction.

There is what I’ve been calling External Sports Ethics: the focus on the various scandals or controversies surrounding sport and athletes. This focuses on things like domestic violence by athletes, issues of abuse and harassment, racial and other forms of discrimination, various socio-economic problems in sport. This focus is often what many outside of Sports Ethics think Sports Ethics is primarily about.

These are important ethical concerns and, unfortunately, these issues often surround sport and athletes. I call them external because they are external to the fundamental structure and purpose of sport. They are not about sport as such. These are problems that occur in all human domains and there is nothing unique about these problems that arises from sport itself. Sport is one particular way to focus on these concerns, but the focus is on those concerns, not sport.

What I call Internal Sports Ethics is the focus on the fundamental structure and purpose of sport and the ethical question arising from or due to the structure or purpose. These are things like the ethics of fouling or gamesmanship, questions about the application of rules or to the justification of these rules, and questions about the moral value of sport. For the most part, these are issues or concerns that come about only within the context of sport. They require, in order to understand and make progress on these questions, thinking about the fundamental nature of sport.

I’ve always been for more interested in Internal Sports Ethics. This is primarily what my courses focus on, and what I tend to write about it. The External Sports Ethics is important, of course, but just not as interesting to me personally.

Why draw the distinction?

Partly, this is just taxonomy; doing what philosophers love to do: categorize.

Partly, it is to note the difference between what I do in my classrooms and what I talk about with journalists and media. Though in talking to journalists, I try to pull things back to a more internal focus; the story the journalists are looking for is often more of an external focus. Identifying these two distinct ways of thinking about sports ethics has helped me understand the differences between what I am interested in and what the journalist is interested in. I’d like to think that has helped me to communicate better with journalists and with my students.

But I also think there is something deeper here that suggests a way that philosophers are different from their fellow academics. Speaking in generalities, I have found that most study of sport outside of philosophy is the external variety. They are concerned with issues of the day: gender, climate change, racism, sexism, or something like that. And then they look at the ways in which these things show up in and around sport. But they could just as easily be writing about theater, ice cream shops, or dog grooming. Sport is a vehicle by which they look at other issues. It is a hook to get people interested: that is, most people are interested in sport, so sport becomes a way to reach out to people to get to them to think about other topics. There is little if any attention brought to what sport is; in part, because sport is just the instrument to get things going.

In case I am misunderstood: this is not criticism. There is nothing wrong with using sport in this way to study other important topics or concerns. It can be a very useful hook or way into things.

My point is that it is helpful, and important, to see how different these approaches are. The questions are different, the methods are different, and the discussions are different. Identifying this difference has been immensely helpful for me when working with colleagues in other disciplines studying sport. I was often perplexed by what they were doing; the kinds of things they focused on. I felt out of step. I still usually do, but now I understand why. And I can see the value of both approaches and also better appreciate the value of the internal approach.

The external approach has its value but it’s not what I am interested in or what I do. I am interested in understanding sport and the moral questions that arise because of sport. Being able to identify that allows me to better focus and organize my research and teaching. It helps me make more sense of what I am doing by seeing that it is something quite different from what my non-philosophy colleagues are doing.