rhubroma said:And you have wonderfully summed up why ethical behavior doesn't (can't) exist in a world governed by the logic of the markets. And it makes all the people who refuse or won't see it that way naive.
Whenever big money gets involved with anything, the first culture to be abandoned is an ethical one. Whereas nothing is pure, purity doesn't exist. Purity is for the puritans, not for those involved in big business like pro sport. It all about money, period.
Come on rhubroma, I usually agree with you in part, but just because we choose not to partake it makes us (I am lumping myself in with the puritans) and our philosophy neither nonexistent nor naive. I would argue once again that yours is an attitude that justifies actions one knows is wrong. If we (the puritans) hold to our standard we know that a) the results won't come and b) we will probably have no effect on the lack of ethics of others. We choose purity in sport anyway. And I believe some have held that standard clear to the professional ranks, you just don't hear it because of the reasons listed above.
It's a choice, period. What I see in your statement is essentially, the old standard. Everybody is doing it why can't I. It is justification.
The one thing I will agree on, the choice being made is about money.
Edit: I should say that I understand francie and your postition on the subject, I am simply saying you are dismissing purity as though it doesn't exist, and those of us that hold to it as naive, neither of which in my estimation is true.