With everything going on in the world of late, it is hard to maintain focus. I want to continue my topic, but I am often compelled to address those other things that are going on. For the moment, I have abated my compulsion and will continue my treatise. We will see if I can keep doing that as time progresses.
In my last post, I spoke of ethics and tried to present what it is in the most basic of senses. The big question I ended with was determining who the others were. That is, who’s interests and desires are so important to me that I am willing to sacrifice my own interests and desires in favor of theirs. Where does the ethical impetus come from?
In some sense, the answer seems simple enough: everyone else. Society. My community. My parents. For some strange reason, I care what everyone else thinks about me, and so I will sacrifice my own crazy desires to appease those around me. I admit that this is something I feel and perhaps you do not. Over the course of my life, I have met some people who certainly do not valuate the world as I do. Perhaps you are such a person?
However, it has also been my experience that those sorts of people are fewer and further between. And unfortunately, those people also tend to be in positions of authority or power. I have often wondered if there is a correlation between these seemingly opposing things. (Spoiler: I do believe this is the case, and this is part of the point of this theory of handicapping).
It has been my experience that people who voluntarily limit themselves, who handicap themselves, are putting themselves at a disadvantage. Perhaps not in every instance, but in the lion’s share of instances limiting one’s self often leads to being in a situation of less. This is why I chose the word “handicap” in the first place. In general, handicapping has a negative connotation, suggesting that handicapping is negative and ought to be avoided at all costs.
In sports, when someone is handicapped it is meant to level the playing field. The one with the clear advantage is given a limitation to offset their advantage. That way, when the game begins, even those who are not as proficient can stand a chance against those with great proficiency. But this is simply another way of saying that the one who clearly ought to win in the match up is being limited so the one who should not win the match up can be placated.
In this case, the handicapping may be viewed as positive for the underdog but negative for the superior athlete. I would imagine the superior athlete would not accept such an arrangement normally, unless there was some reason to allow the limiting action. This, once again, is ethics. The superior athlete sacrificing what they may desire in favor of the desires of others. Perhaps others in this case include the audience, wanting to see a more balanced match up. Perhaps it is the business owners trying to ensure the match up is less predictable; if the same people always won, the sport would become quite boring.
But in this case, the handicapping is once again happening not because of the desires of the individual, but instead the desires of others. Once again this is about doing something others want instead of what I want.
In the case of the athlete, they may be compelled to follow and obey in order to continue in their sport. After all, what would sports be without the support of audiences and others? Some may argue that a sport is strictly for the individual in isolation, but how many athletes can you think of that never perform for some sort of audience? To be fair, those that do would likely not be very well known for precisely the reason I am making.
This all falls into the category of definitions now. That is, an athlete is an athlete in large part because they perform for some sort of audience. Were there no audience to be concerned with, it may affect the impetus of the individual to accept some sort of handicapping.
For me, for my discussion, focusing on the case of athletes is not really where I wish to focus. I am more concerned with a general concept of handicapping, particularly in the average person’s day-to-day life. The individual who is self legislating, deciding for themselves that they ought to behave in ways other than the ways they would like to behave. Like so many other ideas and concepts I prefer to discuss here, this one once again is likely causing some confusion. I can tell by the way my sentence structures are becoming fuzzy and unclear, even to myself who is writing this all down.
I think I will tie this post off here for now, and think about this a bit more. It seems to me it is pretty clear who the others are in this situation: society. However, what may still be less clear is why one would abandon their own desires in favor of the desires of those around them. As I suggested in my previous post, it seems like the why is related to a sort of “keeping the peace.” But that over simplified answer has also not been sitting well with me.
It has taken me a long time to really talk about this topic. It seems I am still struggling to explain it properly.