Navigating the Moral Landscape
We are not children and should not be tempted to think about complex issues as children do…
In April 1992, “Iron” Mike Tyson entered the Indiana Youth Center to serve a six-year sentence for a felony rape conviction (he ended up serving three years). The Tyson case gained national headlines and was object of much debate, often dividing households and groups of friends. The Tyson case involved several issues to untangle: fight fans were disappointed that the upcoming megafight between Tyson and Evander Holyfield, the new heavyweight champion, would have to wait; feminists and activists saw Tyson as a classic bully who abused an innocent woman; others saw his conviction as the product of bad circumstance and skewed public perception.
While the court had its formal say with a guilty conviction, the court of public opinion is a different animal with different rules and, quite often, different outcomes. For example, how one felt about Tyson was colored by whether or not they believed Tyson was actually guilty of rape, independent of the court’s decision.
Twenty years later, another prominent boxing champion, Floyd “Money” Mayweather, finds himself on the brink of a prison sentence. On Dec. 21, 2011, Mayweather was sentenced to 90 days in jail after entering a guilty plea to misdemeanor domestic violence and harassment charges as part of a plea deal to avoid felony charges.
There are several parallels between the Mayweather and Tyson cases: like Tyson in 1992, Mayweather is arguably the most visible boxer in the sport; like Tyson, Mayweather’s sentencing is coming on the brink of a megafight (with Manny Pacquiao); like the Tyson case, the public is divided over the Mayweather case. Like Tyson, the crime that the Mayweather is guilty of committing carries a specific social stigma that leads to uncomfortable conversations and judgments. Domestic violence (Mayweather) and rape (Tyson) are perceived differently than normal assault or drug-related charges; as a society, we are generally (but not always) more forgiving of men who fight other men or use/abuse illegal drugs than men who perpetrate violence against women.
In the face of this, how is the fight fan supposed to feel about Floyd Mayweather? Here I’ll provide an informal guide to thinking about the Mayweather case. In doing so, I don’t impose any single perspective but, rather, outline a process for how the fight fan can responsibly formulate a stance of their own.
INNOCENCE. The fan of boxing must decide to either believe that the allegations are true or not. If we do not believe the allegations and think that Mayweather is innocent, then thinking about the entire situation is rather simple: how we felt about Mayweather before the sentencing was announced is how we should feel now. We might feel this way because we simply deny the accusations outright—regardless of how the case looks and how strong the evidence is, we ignore the details and believe (for no rational reason) that Mayweather is innocent. Alternatively, we can believe that Mayweather is innocent because of reasonable doubt—having considered the evidence we harbor too much doubt to conclude that he’s guilty. The latter is in harmony with the legal-philosophical principles of “reasonable doubt” and “innocent until proven guilty.”
GUILT. Believing that Mayweather is guilty is a more complicated endeavor because guilt is not a binary (is or isn’t) quantity; one can be entirely responsible for some acts or partially responsible for others. This is especially true in cases like Mayweather’s where there are multiple crimes and alleged instances of wrongdoing.
To our internal moral compass, Mayweather could be guilty of every alleged crime (including the felonies), only the crimes he plead guilty to committing or even less (maybe a milder misdemeanor that Mayweather wasn’t charged with).
Why we think he is guilty can be based on blind acceptance: we think he is guilty simply because we think he is, without an appeal to reason, evidence or nuance. We can also feel that he is guilty because we’ve fully deferred to the judgment of the court (where Mayweather plead guilty to a misdemeanor).
Regardless of how guilty we feel he is, a critical step must follow: Do we feel the punishment fits the crime? Even if we feel that Mayweather is guilty of a morally reprehensible act, we might resolve any moral misgivings if he is properly punished; the punishment can make us feel differently about the crime. Or we can feel, for our own reasons (legal or moral), that the punishment does not fit the crime, that the crime deserves harsher consequences.
In summary, we might be able to characterize our sentiment as fitting into one of the following categories (I’ve neglected using legal terms such as “felony” or “misdemeanor” because our moral compasses don’t always operate along legal boundaries):
a) Mayweather is not guilty of any crime, should not be punished.
b) Mayweather is guilty of a minor crime, is being punished correctly.
c) Mayweather is guilty of a minor crime, is being punished too harshly.
d) Mayweather is guilty of a minor crime, is not being punished harshly enough.
e) Mayweather is guilty of a major crime, is being punished correctly.
f) Mayweather is guilty of a major crime, is being punished too harshly.
g) Mayweather is guilty of a major crime, is not being punished harshly enough.
The above represents an obvious oversimplification of matters but can be used as a guide to structure our sentiments. This is beneficial because it provides rhyme and reason to our feelings and might alert us to how biases (which we all have) might influence how we feel about the situation. However we feel, we should ask ourselves why and be able to defend it.
Note that in none of the above is any discussion about Floyd Mayweather the boxer. While attempting to separate how we feel about Mayweather the man from the boxer is challenging, it is a worthy exercise and the key to being a responsible fan: how we feel about Mayweather’s legal troubles should not influence how we think he’d fare in a fight against Manny Pacquiao; whether we think his anti-PED stance is genuine; if we think his knockout of Victor Ortiz was the product of a cheap shot.
For example, it is possible to fully believe that Mayweather is guilty of a crime and be a fan of Mayweather the boxer, acknowledging his many boxing accomplishments? Carrying so many different thoughts at once is more challenging than simple black-white or good-evil sentiments, which is why most fans adopt one extreme or the other (“I hate/love Mayweather the boxer and man”). And to be fair, sometimes what happens in the real world is so severe or dark that we are tempted to re-think how we think about the person-athlete in their entirety (O.J. Simpson is a very famous example).
Note that the method outlined above can be applied in more cases than Mayweather’s: the closing months of 2011 saw sexual abuse in the national spotlight, triggered by the unfortunate turn of events surrounding the Penn State football program. Recent years saw two prominent NFL players, Michael Vick and Plaxico Burress, serve significant time in prison for felony crimes. All these situations force fans to choose sides and make uncomfortable judgments.
As long as athletes are in the limelight and are human beings, these situations will always exist—athletes are no less fallible than anyone else. As individuals we have the right to feel however we want to about these situations. It is time, however, to demand more of ourselves as fans: we are not children and should not be tempted to think about complex issues as children do. My hope is that we come to our conclusions (whatever they are) systematically and logically, such that we can intelligently discuss the issues as responsible moral beings and fans.
