Everyday Ethics

 For those who are unfamiliar with the topic at hand, Shawne Merriman is an all-Pro linebacker for the San Diego Chargers.  During the preseason, Merriman sustained significant injuries to two ligaments in his knee.  He has been advised by five different specialists to have immediate surgery to repair the damage, which would force him to sit out the entire season.  This is made more complicated by the fact that the Chargers are the odds-on favorite to win the Super Bowl, and Merriman would certainly be a significant part of that achievement should it take place.  As a result of some unknown decision-making process, Merriman has opted to forgo surgery and will attempt to play the entire season with two torn knee ligaments, wearing a protective brace.  The question is a simple one, though not an easy one.  Should the Chargers allow Merriman to play?

To formulate this question in properly ethical terms, do the Chargers have an obligation to stop Merriman from playing?  Alternatively, is there anything morally wrong with allowing Merriman to play?  Attempting to answer this question will not be easy, as there are a number of ethical concerns at play here.  We will need our best ethical tools at hand, and we begin with the most obvious one, evaluation of consequences.

For those who are unfamiliar with ethical theory, consequentialism is broadly defined as the theory that the consequences of an act determine whether it is right or wrong.  Thus, determining whether the Chargers ought to allow Merriman to play is simply a matter of evaluating likely consequences and selecting the “best” outcome.  We should note here that our decision is not about whether Merriman should play or not, but whether the organization should allow it, given that he has decided to do so. 

First, we must consider likely consequences.  On the positive end, Merriman is an excellent player, and the Chargers will probably be better with him than without him.  Further, they have a very real chance to win the Super Bowl, which is something that most players value highly and few ever experience.  Finally, Merriman probably has performance incentives built into his contract, such that he makes more money by playing well than not playing at all, though he will get paid his full salary even if he cannot play.

On the other hand, there are some compelling negative consequences that must be considered.  First, Merriman is risking career-ending injury, which is complicated by the fact that he is in the final year of his contract with the Chargers, and a horrific on-field injury will make future suitors wary of signing him.  In addition, Merriman’s injury may actually make him inferior to his potential replacement, and the Chargers might be worse with him playing than without him.  This contradicts our previous claim that they will be better without him, but until we actually see him play, no one knows how much he can contribute.

How good the Chargers will or won’t be without Shawne Merriman on the field is not something we can adequately answer, so we should probably consider those consequences as canceling one another out.  This leaves the possibility of winning the Super Bowl and making more money against potential career-ending injury.  It seems obvious that the action with the best consequences is for Merriman not to play.

However, remember our earlier remark that we are asking whether the Chargers are obligated to prevent Merriman from playing, not whether he ought to play.  And if all we consider are consequences for the team, Merriman’s potential injury is not a consequence for the Chargers, since he may or may not be on the team after this season.  From the standpoint of the organization, if we only consider localized consequences, Merriman ought to be allowed to play.  On the other hand, if we consider all the consequences without regard for whom they effect, a case can be made for allowing or not allowing Merriman to play.  The difficulty lies in calculating the weight and probability of each likely outcome.  For myself, career-ending injury is not worth the chance at a Super Bowl, but others might feel differently, including Merriman.  So it’s not clear that one outcome is really better than others.

This example clearly points out some of the difficulty in trying to make ethical decisions solely on the basis of likely consequences.  Issues regarding point of view, likelihood of certain outcomes, and comparisons between outcomes are all very basic challenges to consequentialist moral theories.  From the standpoint of everyday ethics, it seems that we cannot always rely on analyzing consequences to help us determine what we ought to do.  Sometimes this is perfectly fine, but it’s important to realize when consequentialism proves inadequate. 

As our title implies, this is the first in a series of articles that will consider ethical questions related to Shawne Merriman’s injury and whether he should be allowed to play football this season.  Our goal will be to use this example to glean some sort of knowledge regarding our own ethical decision-making.  In the next section, we will consider an alternative view from the standpoint of deontological, or duty ethics.  This will include questions about Merriman’s autonomy, as well as the duty associated with contractual agreements.  In our final section on this subject, I will offer my own analysis of this issue, drawing equally on several perspectives.  In addition, we will offer some conclusions about our own ethical decision-making in general.  Stay tuned sports fans (and ethics fans).   

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.