Sport, Philosophy, and Good Lives

5. Sport, Dirty Language, and Ethics

Sport, Dirty Language, and Ethics Hell, no. Kofi Annan, 2005 (when asked whether he was going to resign as UN secretary-general) Go fuck yourself. Vice President Dick Cheney, 2004 (to Senator Patrick Leahy, at a Senate group photo session) I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands. Henry Drummond (the Clarence Darrow character in Inherit the Wind) Win or lose, Popeye, we’re in the fuckin’ greatest game ever played. Pete Rose, 1975 (to the opposing team’s third base coach in the World Series) We turn now to some more narrow concerns associated with sport and good lives. I focus on a relatively neglected area of ethical reflection , yet one that is particularly relevant when thinking about 5 94 Sport and Good Lives sports. The literature on cheating, sportsmanship, and performanceenhancing drugs is considerable. The literature on the ethics of speech, at least in sports, is sparse. Since sport is the locus for wellknown vulgarians, and speech in sports is often profane (and we expect such coarseness), it might be interesting to examine the nature and value of dirty language against the background of its prevalence in sports. Because arguments against foul language are often based on appeals to prudence, virtue, or overall social good, reasons involved in evaluating bad language involve issues about how to live well. I confess that I am most interested in the fascinating (and even amusing) topic of vulgar language, yet the context in which I discuss these issues (sports) seems to me to be entirely appropriate. From the distinguished to the dirtbag, cussing is ubiquitous, yet relatively few have attempted to understand this linguistic phenomenon , and fewer still have reflected on the ethical aspects of this type of speech.¹ In this chapter I will attempt just that. I will begin with some comments about the way in which Harry Frankfurt ’s notorious essay on contemporary culture occasions interesting questions about the use of taboo language and why scholars of sport might be particularly interested in these matters. After providing some descriptive details about the use of so-called bad language , I will consider the relevant arguments that might support various ethical judgments about cussing. The picture I will sketch will be rather messy, but if I am right, the messiness will favor the vulgarians rather than the puritans.² While my attention will be focused on cussing in sports, the implications of certain arguments for an ethics of speech in everyday life will be clear. i. Frankfurt, “Bull,” and Sports I first read “On Bullshit” many years ago.³ At the time my response to Harry Frankfurt’s adventurous use of one of our favorite and familiar expletives was mild amusement, apart from the philosophical content of his conceptual analysis or the power of his cul- Sport, Dirty Language, and Ethics 95 tural critique. He was on to something important, no doubt about that. The notoriety of the essay grew exponentially when Princeton University Press decided to print it as a stand-alone text and the sales took off. Here was a little book that had something significant to say about our cultural life, but . . . how could we talk about it in polite company? A New York Times review essay referred to “A Princeton Philosopher’s Unprintable Essay Title,” and politely demurred, referring to the phenomenon as “bull.”4 For me, the awkwardness associated with the title became as interesting as the analysis of sophistry that Frankfurt offers in the essay. The irony was delicious. He wanted to talk about “bullshit,” but he could not talk about it without referring to it. The only way to avoid “bullshit” was to refer to it explicitly and truthfully. As reported in the Times article, Frankfurt says, “I used the title I did . . . because I wanted to talk about [bull] without any [bull], so I didn’t use ‘humbug’ or ‘bunkum.’” Since the essence of “bullshit,” according to Frankfurt, is unconcern with truth, the very avoidance of the supposed obscenity stood condemned as a spurious attempt to uphold decorum at the cost of stating the obvious. In Frankfurt’s comments on the essay’s title, we see a...