If a lion steals a cheetah's kill, did he perform an immoral act? Did he cheat? After all he didn't kill the prey and his actions clearly place the cheetah at a disadvantage. Do you think the cheetah finds himself pondering why life is so unfair? I can promise you...he doesn't. He sets his focus on making his next kill. If he allowed morality to dictate his actions he would be extinct.
If nature considers this to be "fair and equitable" between competing species, then why do we strive to change the laws of nature when we ourselves are in a competitive situation by infusing moral perspectives.
The "rules" or laws of the game, much like the laws of nature, do not specify that one opponent must follow an unwritten law to level the playing field. The lion doesn't have to give the cheetah a warning in advance to be "fair". He doesn't have to contribute to the cheetahs success.
In the same way, the rules of pool do not have a written or unwritten law that states one opponent must forfeit an advantage because his opponent was not paying attention.
If we believe that morals should play a factor then we must also ask ourselves....are morals universal in nature....just as the laws of nature are universal?
It turns out they are not. They vary by religious perspective and even by region and the influences of culture as well as personal experience. With so many variables, we can never apply morality to the rules with any degree of uniformity.
Therefore, it seems logical to me that if we simply follow the written rules just as all other life follows the laws of nature, we wouldn't have to debate whether someone's actions were "moral" or not.
We can effectively eliminate all the morality controversy since at the heart of the matter, it cannot be applied consistently and therefore has no place in the game or the rules.
The spirit of the written rules contribute to this concept. " If you don't call the foul then it never happened" If it never happened then we cannot apply morality to a non-event.
It is only those acting contrary to the laws of nature, as well as the actual written rules, who choose to infuse the variability of morality to the game in order to find some level of comfort in supporting their diverse opinion.
If nature considers this to be "fair and equitable" between competing species, then why do we strive to change the laws of nature when we ourselves are in a competitive situation by infusing moral perspectives.
The "rules" or laws of the game, much like the laws of nature, do not specify that one opponent must follow an unwritten law to level the playing field. The lion doesn't have to give the cheetah a warning in advance to be "fair". He doesn't have to contribute to the cheetahs success.
In the same way, the rules of pool do not have a written or unwritten law that states one opponent must forfeit an advantage because his opponent was not paying attention.
If we believe that morals should play a factor then we must also ask ourselves....are morals universal in nature....just as the laws of nature are universal?
It turns out they are not. They vary by religious perspective and even by region and the influences of culture as well as personal experience. With so many variables, we can never apply morality to the rules with any degree of uniformity.
Therefore, it seems logical to me that if we simply follow the written rules just as all other life follows the laws of nature, we wouldn't have to debate whether someone's actions were "moral" or not.
We can effectively eliminate all the morality controversy since at the heart of the matter, it cannot be applied consistently and therefore has no place in the game or the rules.
The spirit of the written rules contribute to this concept. " If you don't call the foul then it never happened" If it never happened then we cannot apply morality to a non-event.
It is only those acting contrary to the laws of nature, as well as the actual written rules, who choose to infuse the variability of morality to the game in order to find some level of comfort in supporting their diverse opinion.
Last edited: