How a figure doesn't apologize, to the country that once worshiped them after admitting they cheated, is mind-boggling. Lance Armstrong made countless Americans and other supporters look foolish for building him up so much. These fans deserved an apology. Again, Lance wouldn't apologize because he felt still no moral boundaries were crossed.
This evidence leads to one conclusion. Whether or not he knows it, Lance Armstrong follows Mandevillian moral philosophies. Bernard Mandeville proclaimed countless times that what is best for oneself is what is morally right. Lance Armstrong knew that winning was what was best for him, and he disregarded any institution or rules that would render his path. The only bad thing Lance Armstrong must think he did was get caught.
This is the modern day proof that Mandevillian principles don't work in society. Whether they don't work for anyone or whether one bad apple spoiled the bunch, I can't say. When Lance Armstrong was put up by the American people as a figurehead for America, his gains were far superior to the American peoples. When Armstrong tumbled down, he took all of those supporters down with him. This shows that Mandevillian principles may lead to the success of one, but can turn back on that one and take three people down with it.
This evidence leads to one conclusion. Whether or not he knows it, Lance Armstrong follows Mandevillian moral philosophies. Bernard Mandeville proclaimed countless times that what is best for oneself is what is morally right. Lance Armstrong knew that winning was what was best for him, and he disregarded any institution or rules that would render his path. The only bad thing Lance Armstrong must think he did was get caught.
This is the modern day proof that Mandevillian principles don't work in society. Whether they don't work for anyone or whether one bad apple spoiled the bunch, I can't say. When Lance Armstrong was put up by the American people as a figurehead for America, his gains were far superior to the American peoples. When Armstrong tumbled down, he took all of those supporters down with him. This shows that Mandevillian principles may lead to the success of one, but can turn back on that one and take three people down with it.
The Mandeville-Armstrong connection seems like it could be quite strong. Certainly in the case of Armstrong, virtue appears to be quite literally the offspring that flattery begot upon pride: what we thought was virtuous behavior turned out to be an ego-driven individual pursuing his own self-aggrandizement.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what Mandeville himself would think. It seems that there might be a couple of different possibilites. One would be to agree with your assessment of Armstrong's view that the only thing he did wrong was get caught. Another possibility is that Mandeville would view Armstrong as having behaved viciously even under his own system, since the only determinant of vice in this system is the negative feedback that vice brings. If vice is anything that causes such public shaming, then certain Armstrong behaved in a vicious way, even if his own motives were not necessarily any worse or better in a fundamental sense than the so-called virtuous. Finally, maybe Mandeville would just see him as proof of the correctness of his system: even almost 300 years after his work was published, public praise seems to be a major factor in deciding what counts as virtue.
Maybe Armstrong's problem was that he was not Mandevillean enough? A true Mandevillean would remember that the public can shame them just as easily as it can blame them, and therefore they should take all steps to avoid this. In a strange way, the more Mandevillean thing might have been for Armstrong to avoid doping and to cultivate a public image as a philanthropist and opponent of doping. He would still be as vicious according to Mandeville's system at the end of the day, but he would still be seen as virtuous today. Armstrong's behavior is easy to justify from a Mandevillean perspective, but it is not necessarily totally unimpeachable even from this point of view.
My thought on doping in sports is where do you draw the line on what is illegal. There are many supplements and powders you can take to increase your fitness as well but they are legal. It is just when a method to enhance your training becomes too effective that they ban it. This seems counter intuitive to me because cycling will gain prominence the faster the times get.
ReplyDelete