Ethical integrity

There have been a lot of controversial ethical integrity issues when it comes to African American Professional Sports Players and the crimes they commit and/or are punished for. There is great debate and concern when it comes to sports players be held accountable for their ignorance, being oblivious to what is right or wrong because of their cultural background; race and socioeconomic status, and being a regular flesh toting man, not role model; because they didn’t ask for that role they just want to play the game. There are people that will put ethical integrity to the side for their sports idols. Some are blinded by their athletic gifts. Some see them as above societal and government laws.

Some people just want to keep them as role models because they are African American; Black. Then there are the people who refuse to put their ethical integrity aside, cursing these players because they should have known better.

In this paper this writer will take two sports players and fight both sides of the field as a cynic and an advocate. Each case is different. Each player has a defense that brings question to all topics.

The requirement for this research paper was to choose from four topics; The Role of Government, The Role of Corporations, Environmental Issues, Ethical Integrity. This writer will attempt to integrate all four subjects into this paper. Michael Vick; quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons and Tiger Woods; First African American Professional Golfer to win a major professional golf tournament, have all at some point violated laws; ethical, societal, moral, government. The government plays a two sided game, bending the rules for some and making examples of others; the media exploits them, talk show hosts/comedians dumb down the seriousness of all the crimes; alleged but society is iffy on condemning them unsure if they created who these players turned out to be. So is integrity always used? Not always. Is it plain black and white; right from wrong? Not always. Should they know better? For the most part, yes but not always. Can society, corporations and government judge professional athletes on their moral judgments when their ethics are questionable? Are morals and ethics both involve a compromising of ethical integrity?

According to the textbook; In Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero ethics is the study of right and wrong conduct and is based on consequences. Integrity is adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. (Ruggiero, 2007). Ethical Integrity is basically not betraying convictions or moral standards regardless of the consequence it may bring.

The press has stressed that Michael Vick compromised his ethical integrity, as a role model, as a professional and as a motivational speaker. When you are in the public eye; a celebrity, every thing you do will be up for scrutiny. All eyes are on Vick. In April 2007, Michael Vick violated federal laws barring competitive dog fighting, and obtained and trained pit bulls for the purpose of fighting. It was said that he had been doing so for over five years. (July, 2007) In August 2007 he copped out and did 23 months in federal prison, along with loosing his NFL salary of over 100 million dollars and a slew of endorsement deals. (July, 2007)  He was no longer that poster board man everyone wanted to pay to sell their products. Due to poor judgment, and the extent of the immoral crime Vick was bad for business. His ethical integrity went out the window. What a price to pay for a crime he claimed he never even knew was a crime. Jamie Foxx told a reporter at the Smoking Gun he agreed, saying “cultural thing, I think. Most brothers didn’t know that, you know. I used to see dogs fighting in the neighborhood all the time. I didn’t know that was Fed time. So, Mike probably just didn’t read his handbook on what not to do as a black star. I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and don’t get time. I think in this situation, he really didn’t know the extent of it, so I always give him the benefit of the doubt (July, 2007).” The debates are endless about Vick’s conviction. It seems to some that the punishment does not fit the crime. If you are lead to believe from childhood that dog fighting isn’t a crime, how would you define his actions? Many articles speak of Vick not seeming remorseful. If he doesn’t think he has compromised his integrity why would he be?

Environmental issues are things that effect the environment; Earth and its people, animals, plants, lands and oceans. (West, Larry) As people we have an obligation to protect the environment. If we fail to do so it may cause extinction and/or send a wrong message about what respecting the environment, or questioning about the treatment of pets.

In the case of Michael Vick’s animal cruelty, animal rights advocates are mortified by the environmental issues. Environmental issues are a point or matter of discussion, debate, or dispute of an organization's environmental aspects. Animal abuse is of great concern amongst urban youth. As humans we have an obligation to care for the animals of this earth and owe a moral and ethical obligation to treat animals with respect and dignity as well as protect them from harm. A violation of ethical integrity could fall on all parties/companies/government involved in the Michael Vick indictment and leave people to believe that Michael himself did not; according to his values.  As a people we need standards of living, ethically and/or morally, but should Vick be penalized/punished/convicted for having low standards.  This raises a debate on our own standards. Do we (society) have the right to set standards that have clauses to fit situations? Should animals have rights over human rights?

In order to understand the role The NFL Corporation had in the decision making of what the penalty for Vick should be this writer will explain corporate ethics.  According to The Institute of Business Ethics, corporate ethics refers narrowly to the application of ethical values internally to business practices within a corporation. The term business ethics often embraces considerations of the role that business has to play in society as a whole and its wider, external responsibilities (IBE, 2008). The relationship between business ethics and the responsibility of corporate is that the ethical values are applied to core business strategies and a set of commitments as well as obligations made to stockholders. A corporation’s responsibility is to the shareholders, the clients. The approach will be acted as a support system by its ethical values and by the policies and programs in place to make those values operational (IBE, 2008). Basically a corporation 

The NFL took preparatory steps in determining the penalty for Michael Vick’s arrest, indictment as well as the crime and conviction. The NFL relied on Commissioner Goddell to determine what Vick’s penalty will be. In an interview in Fox News online article Goddell said in a letter to Vick, “it is my responsibility as commissioner of the NFL to determine whether your conduct, even if not criminal, nonetheless violated league policies, including the Personal Conduct Policy," (Associated Press, 2007) Goddell’s decision was questioned based upon his negligence to base his decision on his ethical obligation. It was said his decision was made as a power move and personal gain even though Vick was found to have violated a personal conduct clause. The NFLPA board members were said to base their decision on the players conduct and on a most subjective quality, a person's character. (Bryant, 2007) The Northern Football League’s Players Association’s (NFLPA) obligation and ethical responsibility is to the NFL is to Establish monitoring policies that will ensure that the Northern Football League complies with the Law and conforms to the highest standards of financial and ethical behavior.  Even during the drafting process of a player, Jim Fassel, Giants Head Coach said,  If a guy doesn't have character - and like I determine is if he doesn't have a substance and a character about him, a love of the game, to play the game, and a responsibility about him,

I don't care how good he is. It's not going to happen.” His ethical obligation is to the league and his team as a whole (Bryant, 2007). The government played its role in the conviction of Michael Vick but some people; fans, NFL player and advocates questioned the sentencing, comparing his crime to other people in the public eye. One would say that the government and its officials (judges) have compromised their ethical obligation to uphold the law and to follow guidelines to help define certain ethical issues and the consequences that are to be given if someone decides to act wrongfully; the role of the government (2008, p.5).  

Michael Vick’s crime/conviction raised debatable issues in the compromising of the government and corporate’s ethical and social obligations. The need for appropriate actions by the government and corporation’s role in the optimal ethical, decision-making processes was also questionable. Can we as people regardless of our power as officials; government, corporate, players, NFL board members use ethical integrity when it comes judging, questioning other’s ethical behavior without bias? It is obvious that ethics are not about what we say or what we intend, it is about what we do. They are a descriptive discipline, involving the collection and interpretation of data on what people from various cultures believe, without any consideration for the appropriateness or reasonableness of those beliefs.” (pg. 5)

Tiger Woods has also been on the chopping block for neglecting his ethical obligations; to his fans, society, millions or shall I say billions of children who view him a role model and his contract with the PGA in addition to his endorsers. But has he?

Sports blogs, news articles are flooded with the debate questioning Woods’ ethical integrity. Some say he has compromised it by the immoral act, some say he has compromised it by not telling his act to the fans and public on the grounds that they believe they are owed it and an apology for his actions. Society believes he has a social obligation to exploit his infidelities and personal life to the masses. Another part of society believes he owes it to them because once he became a celebrity he gave up having a personal life; it’s a day in and day out profession. Only a few seem to believe neither; that his only ethical responsibility is to his endorsers/sponsor and the PGA. Sales bank on his image. Endorsers stand to loose a lot if his image is viewed as less desirable and unethical for future sales.

In an online article; writer Elijah Weber (Weber, 2010) brought up an interesting   issue about companies aligning themselves around Tiger. These businesses failed to get to know Tiger Woods as a person before they use him as a spokesperson/representative of their product. The role they play as a corporation is to have an ethical process in decision making but like the majority money is the focal point. Businesses profit off of his likability and skills ranking. Now Woods’ immoral indiscretions have caused endorsers and sponsors to drop him like a hot potato. The crash of his car seems to have disappeared; of public notice and a legal obligation to share with the public and his moral convictions have been brought to the forefront although it happened in his personal life. This brings up questions on Woods’ ethical obligation to society to tell about his extra marital affairs or what sparked the argument with his wife. Woods morals were compromised or were his ethics? 

Let’s look at the difference between morals and ethics? According to an online dictionary, morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. (dictionary.com) In other words, ethics are more so geared at standards or codes based upon how we act and what is expected by the culture or group we are in. Under definitions given being ethically obligated is different from being morally obligated. Morally he is obligated to his wife. The question should very well be, where are the fans social obligation to Woods? Corporate (PGA’s) role in their decision making on how to deal with the media and T. Woods go through the same process as the NFL did with Michael Vick. Their obligation ethically is based upon the laws bonded in his contract.

In conclusion, “ethics is a descriptive discipline, involving the collection and interpretation of data on what people from various cultures believe, without any consideration for the appropriateness or reasonableness of those beliefs.” (pg. 5) In organizations, there must be a form of core values or principle that people understand and accept. It can be assumed or concluded based upon references and this paper and its contents, ethics are important in a society that already has so many laws because without ethics laws wouldn't exist, “because law is not possible without ethics” (Ruggiero 2008, p.4). Bending the law compromises ones ethics and when you bend these laws for personal gain or for selfish reasons and are aware that what you are doing isn’t right and is viewed as a wrongful act than you have already compromised your integrity. 

After reading this paper and according to an article written by John Shepard on “Ethics”, one can assume people rightly say that the role of government is to provide an orderly society, but it also provides an enforceable set of moral and ethical values which control the functioning of our society (Shepard, 2002) and within the laws are embedded; our culture's moral values. Tiger Woods and Michael Vick have an obligation to conform to these societal values in order to contribute to a peaceful and orderly society based on ethics but In opinion their morals are what they set them at even though they are going to be faced with ethical issues if they are in the public eye. Will they base their actions or their decision making with the guidelines of ethical integrity? Not always. Will they claim they know right from wrong or do they? Not always. Should they know better? Not Always? As athletes are they exempt from their ethical, social or moral obligation to society? NEVER!

 Do you think Michael Vick's charge was equal to his crime? Should Tiger tell us his all? Or should Tiger Woods be owed provacy by his fans? Is he morally obligated to tell us what is going on with his wife and their relationshiip or is he ethically obligated. Mick Vick's ignorance of there being a crime fighting pit bulls true or is he playing the I was a po old boy in in our village thats what they did...woe is me? You choose.