In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide?:

• How much did A understand that there was a risk to B and, to the extent that A did understand that there was a risk to B, how much did A do (1) to make B aware of the risk or at least ensure that B understood the risk to the same extent A did and (2) to limit the risk to B to the extent A had some power to limit that risk?
• How much did A profit from the transaction personally?
• How hard did A try to persuade B to participate in the transaction despite the risks to B?
• What were the benefits of participating to B (or maybe to society as a whole) that might make taking on the risk a sensible decision for B?

A's responsibility (even culbability in some cases) increases in my mind the more A knew about the risks to B, the more A did to conceal those risks from B, the less A did to try to limit the risks to B, the more A profited from the transaction, the more A did to persuade B to participate despite the risks, and the less B benefited.  The less A knew about the risks,the more A did to inform B of the risks and limit those risks, the less A had to gain, the less A did to persuade B, and the more B benefited, then the less A is responsible.  In fact, in some cases, if B benefitted enough, A's participation in the transaction may even be praiseworthy.

In the case of the NFL, I think we're somewhere in the middle of that continuum.  With the tobacco companies, I'd put them somewhere closer to the negative part of the continuum, since I think they know they're causing great harm and continue doing it primarily because they profit so much.  With towns hiring policemen, I think we're on the positive side of the continuum because police jobs are good ones and they have great benefits to society.  Still, I think towns have a duty to do all they can to limit the risk to policemen and also take responsibility for the care of policemen who are hurt in the line of duty.  Towns are certainly not doing anything immoral in hiring policemen into risky jobs--but the towns still, in my opinion, have responsibility to care for the policemen if the policemen are injured on the job, even if the policemen are well paid and enter the job with full knowledge of the risks.    

This is just silly, Tex.  I'll provide this response and then I'm moving on to other things because this is even less productive than your Tavon Wilson posts. 


In Response to Re: New Twist to Seau Suicide? : If large numbers of people are really left debilitated by playing football and forced to spend years in misery and poverty because of that, maybe it should end?   I'm sure watching Christians being torn apart by lions or gladiators kill each other in combat was a lot of fun too (and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure it was fun).  But really such cruel sports needed to end.

RESPONSE: So...your past statement that you weren't calling for the end of football was untrue?

I'm not calling for the end of football.  Read more carefully. If football caused large numbers of people to be debilitated then I might call for its end.  But I believe that can be avoided.  


Now I don't think football is that bad and I do believe that there are ways to make the game safe enough to allow it to continue.

RESPONSE: As I previously, please name what the NFL can do to make the game safer, that they already haven't done?

I'm not an expert on all things that can be done to make football safer and neither, I'm sure, are you.  Let's let the experts handle this.  If you're going to insist on this line of argument, then please prove that the NFL has already done everything humanely possible to make football as safe as it can be.  I know you can't really answer that question, so please don't bother to waste your time or anyone else's.  Again, these are questions best left to people with real knowledge.  That's not either you or me.     

But I also believe there is a moral responsibility on the part of all involved in football to ensure that when a player is seriously debilitated by the game that he is taken care of.  Having ex-players live drooling under bridges (because it was their choice to play after all and they got paid handsomely for it!) is not, in my mind, a morally acceptable alternative.

RESPONSE That's what health care and pension plans are for. Do you or I have such an all-encompassing benefit afforded to us, should a catastrophic injury befall us? 

Then let's make sure players have great coverage if that's what we need to do.  Many of the older players don't have that coverage.  Whether you or I have it isn't the issue.  But in case you're concerned, rest assured that I hav great coverage privately and also through the government because I live in Canada where universal health care exists. You maybe can vote for that in the states too if you want . . . I know I will.  


One other minor point: if the players were aware of the risks to themselves, then so was the league.
 
RESPONSE: Once again, you are failing to answer my questions. "The Dog(ggggg) couldn't have done it any better...LOL!!! Why should the league be liable when the players knew the risks going in?

I've already said that, in my opinion on a moral level, the players knowing the risks doesn't not necessarily absolve the league of all responsibility if it too knew that the game it was operating created risks for the players.  Legal liability is a different issue for the courts and lawyers to resolve.  Neither you nor I are experts on that.


In my opinion, if the league was aware that players could be seriously debilitated and continued to move forward, it shares responsibility for the fate of the players with the players themselves.

RESPONSE: Says who?

I say so on a moral level.  (If you have a less demanding moral standard that's fine, but your weaker standard isn't necessarily better than my higher standard.)  On a legal level, the courts will tell us.  (Sorry if you don't trust the courts or lawyers or juries, but if you don't like the American system, you can move somewhere else I guess.)



I don't think you can shirk responsibility when you do something that you know might hurt somebody else just because that somebody else agreed to do it himself.  You still are responsible for the harm you cause.  You can't get out of that responsibility simply by saying the harmed person agreed to do it knowing full well they might be harmed.  If that were the case, it would be completely moral for me to chop off your legs and leave you in pain and bleeding to death as long as you agreed to having your legs chopped off first.

RESPONSE: What drivel! Football is a rough sport, in which it's a certainty that a player won't escape the game unscathed. Everybody knows this. It one of the reasons why the players get paid the big bucks...and why the NFLPA bargains for a health care and pension plan.  

No, they get paid big bucks simply because the demand for top players is high and the supply short.  It's simply the market at work. It has nothing to do with compensation for risk.  Health and pension plans are great . . . but they don't necessarily cover all your costs when you are so debilitated at age 40 that you cannot work ever again. And I'm not sure what the players' benefit plans are (have you done that research?) but I'd be surprised if players who played for short periods are covered for life.  And those who weren't stars may also not have earned sufficient amounts during their careers to provide for themselves.   

And calling something drivel is hardly an argument.