Watching the documentary on Marcus Dupree, I defined whether a personal was morally positive or negative by if I believed that they did what they did because it was the best option available to them and it seemed appropriate, I put them as morally positive. For example, take Barry Switzer. He was on Marcus all the time because that's how he is for all the other players. He pushed him so he could be even better than he already was. Morally, I agreed with his motives. Ethically, I deemed him as ethically positive. The way I categorized between ethically positive or negative was the way they carried out their morals, or motives. His motives were fair and so was the way he carried them out. He wasn't soft or treating Marcus special just because Marcus was undeniably the best. He treated him like any other player and I think that was the ethically right thing to do in this case. Most of the people in the documentary, I placed as morally positive but ethically negative. Take the college recruiters for example. They all wanted Marcus to sign with their team. They all had good motives but the way they carried it out wasn't appropriate. They were offering Marcus thousands of dollars, which was illegal, and moving near him so they could have a better chance of recruiting him. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. So in that case the recruiters had the best intentions but didn't carry them out in a way that was appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment