Three Ethical Reactions To Players’ Social Media Actions

Application Paper Student’s Name Institution Application Paper Recent developments in technology warrant a new ethical approach. If philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Socrates would have anticipated the development of twitter, maybe they would have written something and we would have some guidance on how to approach it. However, the development of social media such as Twitter and Facebook presents a challenge to ethics. This is more so for athletes whose individual actions in the social media platform reflect the teams and organizations they represent. The case raises key ethical questions. Is it against the freedom of expression to restrict how players use Twitter? It is ethical for players to post information that may negatively affect their team or institution. This paper describes three ethical reactions to players’ social media actions that may affect the reputation of their teammates and institutions as well my personal opinion on the matter. From virtue ethics, the actions can be looked at from the perspective of the characters of the players (Fieser, n.d.). Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of nurturing good habits. From Aristotle’s point of view, virtues constitute the good habits acquired that guide our emotions (Fieser, n.d.). In this sense, an important question one would ask about the case is that, would a virtuous person post messages that may harm their reputation and that of their player and institution? Some important virtues according to Fieser (n.d.) include wisdom, justice, and self-respect. In the case, Will Hill posted vulgar messages about sex, drugs, and his dislike of the meals provided by his institution (Ishak & Stroud, n.d.). As a football player, such action affects the reputation of other players and the institution he respects. A virtuous person would not post such because it is inconsistent with justice, wisdom, and self-respect. From the deontological point of view, the actions of players are morally wrong. According to the philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, human beings have a duty to oneself, God, and others (Fieser, n.d.). The absolute duties that we have to others according to the philosopher include avoiding wronging other people, promoting the good of other people, and treating others as equal. Are Will Hill’s tweets consistent with these absolute duties to others? The tweet harmed other people, including teammates and the institution he represents. It is also did not promote the good of anyone. Therefore, from the deontological point of view, posting of messages to social media that wrongs other people is ...