Tiger Woods

Yes, we all know the stories given to us by the news, media, and internet. Tiger Woods did wrong and sh ared his spotlight of shame and pain. True enough he was not liked by many, nevertheless who dont bear mistakes? As an outsider that doesnt watch golf as much, I feel that time has passed and it can be forgiven.For sake of an bank distinguish Tiger has won 95 tournaments, 71 of those on the PGA Tour, including the 1997, 2001, 2002 and 2005 get the hang Tournaments, 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2007 PGA Championships, 2000, 2002, and 2008 U.S. Open Championships, and 2000, 2005 and 2006 Open Championships. With his second Masters victory in 2001, Tiger became the first ever to involve all four barteral major(ip) championships at the same time.He is the career victories leader among active players on the PGA Tour, and is the career m hotshoty list leader. not surprisingly, several of Tigers sponsors ware now opted to abandon their alliance with him, citing his moral indiscretions as suitable justification for this decision. save is this the right thing to do?Does the fact that Tiger Woods is not the high-quality private that we took him to be somehow negating the fact that he is an excellent golfer? Are we guilty of a stratum mistake if we suggest that Tigers sponsorships, or his opportunities to play golf, should be taken away because of his mistaken demeanour? There are cardinal ethical read/write heads at bestow here. The first question is whether whizz should be punished in their professional lifespan for actions in their face-to-face life. The second is whether it is morally warrant to break a begin because of immoral behavior.I will here argue that the answer to the first question is no, while the answer to the second question depends on the nature of the contract. Some individuals, rightly appalled by Tigers actions, have suggested that the PGA should punish him, perhaps by suspending him from future tournaments. There are two reasons for rejecting this suggestion. There is a strong precedent against doing so, and such a response threatens to unacceptably blur the line between the public and the private sphere.Many famous people have committed scandalous actions that irreparably ill-treat their public image. Kobe Bryants recent Colorado rape trial is a prime example of this. But no one suggested that Kobe not be allowed to play basketball. Magic Johnson contracted HIV through adulterous sex, that he was treated with warmth and benevolence rather than scorn. Michael Jordan had a notorious gambling problem, but he is hailed as the greatest player of all time. Why should Tiger be treated otherwise? There is a more general concern with abandoning this precedent.Golf is Tiger Woodss job. There is no expectation, or requirement of employment stating that one must be a fair person in order to be a good golfer. We tend to think that whether one ought to be retained in a particular job position depends on whether they ar e qualified for the job, rather than whether they are a generally decent person. Suggesting that Tiger, Kobe, Magic, or Jordan should not be allowed to pursue their profession in virtue of their personalizedized indiscretions would amount to a unique kind of discrimination.From the standpoint of employment qualifications, ones sexual behavior is usually an irrelevant consideration. This brings me to the second consideration concerning punishment in ones professional life based on actions in ones personal life. We tend to think that there is an substantial separation between ones public life and ones private affairs. When one is a celebrity like Tiger Woods, this line is blurred considerably, and one might claim that the privation of this distinction is the price one pays for fame.However, this imposes an arbitrary constraint on a persons individual freedoms. If one has a right to the maintenance of a public and a private sphere, the fact that a person is famous is not obviously a reason for violating this right. The second ethical question raise by the Tiger Woods affair scandal concerns whether it is ethical to break a professional contract based on a persons actions in their personal life. This is a complicated question, and I will limit the discussion to one pertinent facet of it.If Tiger Woods was engage as an endorser because of his public image and persona, and not merely because he is a good golfer, his sponsors are reassert in abandoning their professional relationship for his personal actions. Consider the nature of the contract in question. Companies have hired Tiger because they believe an association with him will help them to sell their products. Tigers role in the contract is presumably to maintain himself as a positive force for this purpose.If Tiger has agreed to this shell of relationship, anything he does that hinders his effectiveness as a marketing tool would be a violation of the contract. epoch we have reason not to punish Tiger professionally, as a golfer, for what he has done in his personal life, we also have reason to punish him professionally, as an endorser, for the same actions. Virtue ethics is jolly helpful in understanding this distinction. Tigers extramarital affairs do not make him a bad golfer, but they do make him a bad endorser.Different standards are at work when we evaluate Tiger the golfer and when we evaluate Tiger the endorser, and only in the latter case does his personal conduct make a relevant difference. We have thus reached an interesting conclusion. First, standards of personal conduct are only relevant to ones professional life if the nature of ones profession dictates as much. This leaves us with a mixed evaluation of Tiger Woods. It seems we can endorse his lost endorsements, but not any punishment from the PGA, for his extramarital affairs. It also helps us to understand how other celebrity scandals have been perceived.While Magic, Kobe, and Jordan are still good basketball pl ayers even though they are not particularly good people, someone like Bill Clinton harms his credibility as President in virtue of inappropriate personal conduct, because appropriate personal conduct is part of the Presidents job description (or so it would seem). Our give mixed reaction to Tiger suggests that he is somewhat unique, a mixture of celebrity and quasi-statesman that we want to hold to a higher standard of conduct, despite having no good reason to do so. References (PGA TOUR, Inc. , 2010) http//www. pgatour. com/players/00/87/93/