When it comes to football here in Washington, the talk is all about Redskin Quarterback Robert Griffin III and how his surgically repaired knee will hold up when regular season play begins. But I think there’s an ethical issue that needs to be addressed, and I’m inviting you to weigh in.
If all goes according to schedule, RGIII will take the first snap on Sept. 9 when the Skins open the season against the Philadelphia Eagles. The Skins will obviously do whatever they can to protect their star quarterback, knowing a single punishing hit could easily end his season—and his career.
Opposing players, on the other hand, have no reason to show him mercy, but what exactly does that mean? Would it be ethical for them to go out of their way to try to reinjure that tender knee? Take our poll and let us know what you think.
Every profession has its own set of ethical guidelines, but all of them include some form of “minimize harm” to others. In a sport like football, that seems to be a real problem. The least that should be done is to have very tight rules and very stern enforcement, with lifetime bans for repeated offenders.
The Eagles should treat RGIII just as they would any other player.
Football is a dangerous game and I don’t begrudge players for trying to make as much money as they can while they play because of the risk they incur and the top entertainment value they provide. I think a better question would be if it’s ethical for players to sue the league for injury related illnesses (concussions) while knowing the inherent danger of the activity. Thanks.