The Philosophy of Tanking!

[jpotter33]

Bear with me. I'm kind of formulating this thesis as I go. And forewarning: this post will read like a philosophical treatise, so proceed with caution. The aim is to elaborate a justifiable concept of tanking by extrapolating the Catholic principle of double effect to basketball.

To begin, I must note that the term "tanking" will be used differently than it is commonly employed today. It's commonly employed in a negative rather than neutral fashion, making all attempts at tanking unjustified. It's similar to the killing/murder distinction: killing can sometimes be justified whereas murder (by definition) can never be justified. In my argument, tanking will be more similar to the concept of killing than the concept of unjustifiable killing known as murder.

Thus, there are two types of tanking: one justified and one unjustified. A very basic, general definition of tanking is "the process of making one's team worse in the short-term in favor of a greater chance of success long-term." It's not a perfect definition for my usage, but it will suffice.

In Catholic moral theology, many theologians use a normative concept known as the principle of double effect to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions that have both positive and negative effects. This principle is employed by sifting the questionable action through four essential conditions that must be passed for the action to be considered justified. These conditions are:
1) The act cannot be morally evil in itself
2) The bad effect cannot cause the good effect (basically another way of stating condition 1)
3) The true intention of the action must be the good effect not the bad effect
4) The good effect must be equal to or greater than the bad effect

For example, this principle is most commonly used in abortion. Social abortions, for economic reasons or as a means of birth control, cannot pass the conditions, because the action of abortion itself (the killing of the fetus) is morally wrong. However, the paragon example of application of the PDE (principle of double effect) is the case of the cancerous womb where a pregnant woman must have her cancerous womb removed to save her life. This "indirect abortion" is passable under the principle of double effect because: 1) removing the womb, even with the fetus inside, is not morally evil in itself, 2) the good effect, removing the cancer, caused the bad effect, killing the fetus, 3) the true intention of the "indirect abortion" is the removal of the cancerous womb, and 4) saving the life of the mother is equal to the loss of life of the fetus.

So I wonder if we can extrapolate this principle to the realm of basketball in order to distinguish between cases of justifiable and unjustifiable tank jobs. Tanking in basketball is a perfect scenario to try and apply this principle to, because it has all of the necessary ingredients for it to work. The questionable action (tanking) produces both good effects (greater chance at long-term success) and bad effects (a bad team in the short-run). And since this is a fan-driven league, the bad effect of having a bad team in the short-run is a real negative consequence to everyone involved (owners, players, coaches, management, etc.) However, since it's not a clear-cut application of the PDE with similar concepts in play, some assumptions will have to be made:
1) purposefully losing games (by sitting players, calling bad plays, messing up on purpose, etc.) is wrong/bad/evil
2) selling off players for way under market value just to make the team worse is wrong/bad/evil
(NOTE: the Rondo trade was NOT an example of this. An example of this would be trading Rondo for merely a protected second round pick just so the team would be worse.)

So under these assumptions, basketball's tanking PDE conditions would be:
1) the tank job is not wrong in itself (assumptions 1 and 2 above)
2) the bad effect (sucking short-term) cannot cause the good effect (greater chance at long-term success)
3) The true intention of tanking must be the good effect not the bad effect
4) The good effect must be equal to or greater than the bad effect

So what we have is a set of fairly common-sense conditions that can make a tank job either justified or unjustified. What I'll do now is compare two apparent tank jobs (Boston and Philly) to distinguish the two separate types of tanking.

Condition 1) the tank job is not wrong in itself

It's pretty clear that Boston's tank job is not wrong in itself. They're not losing on purpose, and they're not selling off players for under market value in order to have their team be worse. In fact, in several deals we might have exceeded market value.

Philly, on the other hand, is a much trickier situation, because one can argue that they were selling off their vets, namely Turner and Hawes, for under market value last year in a blatant attempt to get worse now. However, since it's hard to guage market value for those players, it's hard to truly say whether or not they pass this condition. I'm leaning towards a negative.

Condition 2) the bad effect (sucking short-term) cannot cause the good effect (greater chance at long-term success)

Again, Boston's motives seem to clear this condition, too, because playing time, player development, and gaining assets were the main reasons for Boston's trade. For example, the trades of Rondo, Green, Wright, Nelson, and Rivers all cleared playing time for our young guys or gave us future assets rather than nothing. Thus, it was actually the good effect that caused the bad effect, which is justifiable.

Philly is clearly not passing this condition, because one of their main goals is to be bad for several years to get as high of draft picks as possible. This is most clear by their selections of injured big men, Noel and Embiid, and European stashes, Saric. Thus, Philly clearly doesn't pass this condition of tanking's PDE, because the bad effect (horrible team at present) is causing the good effect (high draft choices).

Condition 3) The true intention of tanking must be the good effect not the bad effect

Both teams obviously pass this condition, because the good effect is the main end goal.

Condition 4) The good effect must be equal to or greater than the bad effect

This condition is hard to determine, because the effects in this application of the PDE are a process rather than a singular event. Therefore, it will take years to actually see which of the two teams' tanking efforts passed this condition, but for now we can consider both teams as passing this condition.

To conclude, I think this method of applying a modified PDE to the action of tanking in basketball is an adequate way of distinguishing between justified and unjustified tank jobs. As for the two teams analyzed, Boston passed the conditions of basketball's PDE as applied to tanking; whereas, Philly failed the first two conditions making their tank job unjustified.

What do you guys think about this method? Did I make any assumption that wasn't warranted, or are there other assumptions that need to be added? Is this an interesting way to distinguish tank jobs, or am I just a crazy philosopher who needs to stick to pondering the useless metaphysics of the universe? 

[KeepRondo]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

[Chris22]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. - Ayn Rand

[KeepRondo]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. - Ayn Rand

That's a terribly selfish view point. And why would you quote someone else instead of just stating your own opinion with your own words? Obviously the person behind this quote is not catholic, so there is a disconnect between my viewpoint and theirs. This person doesn't respect the act of creation. Whether you want to say it's not a life after 2 weeks or not, it's still the work of god. Now this person disagrees with me, and would rather abort this life to make theirs more convenient. I see that as disrespectful to life and to a higher being. That is if you believe in one.

[jpotter33]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

That's literally one of the most important/well-known principles of Catholic moral theology, so, yes, they do use that argument to support that idea. It's a way of protecting the actualized life of the mother over the potential life of the fetus when the mother's health is at risk. This argument is also used by the Catholic church to justify an "INDIRECT ABORTION" in most ectopic pregnancies.

It's a pretty radical idea to categorically say no abortion is morally ok, even when the life of the mother is at stake. Even a large majority of the most conservative pro-lifers still allow this exception.

[jpotter33]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. - Ayn Rand

Haha Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy has almost been universally disregarded by all reputable philosophers/ethicists. So positing a Randian response probably isn't that credible. No one has ever really gave any true credence to rational egoism.

[KeepRondo]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

That's literally one of the most important/well-known principles of Catholic moral theology, so, yes, they do use that argument to support that idea. It's a way of protecting the actualized life of the mother over the potential life of the fetus when the mother's health is at risk. This argument is also used by the Catholic church to justify an "INDIRECT ABORTION" in most ectopic pregnancies.

It's a pretty radical idea to categorically say no abortion is morally ok, even when the life of the mother is at stake. Even a large majority of the most conservative pro-lifers still allow this exception.

I think you are confusing the meaning of unintended harm to the fetus. This is in no way an abortion. The church is saying that if the woman has surgery to remove cancer, that they will not consider it an evil act if the fetus dies as an unintended consequence. This is in no way an abortion or indirect abortion. And this is even considered a gray subject matter for the church. If you read the first sentence of the answer to the following question, it pretty much says that the church would never consider or support an abortion, no matter the greater good.

Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion if it is needed to save a woman’s life?

A: We may never perform an intrinsically evil act even to bring about a great good. For example, a just society cannot intentionally kill innocent civilians in a war, even for the praiseworthy goal of ending a conflict quickly and saving many lives. Likewise, in the context of pregnancy, a woman may not be killed in order to save the life of her child, and a child may not be killed in order to save the life of his mother. However, the Church does permit morally neutral medical procedures designed to save a pregnant woman’s life that may have an unintended side-effect of causing a child to die in the womb, such as the removal of a cancerous uterus.

[Celtics18]

The Sixers are killing fetuses.  We are saving pregnant mothers' lives. 

[guava_wrench]

The Catholic Church is a bigger problem than either tanking or abortion. Now, back to sports talk.

[jpotter33]

Sorry but no abortion is morally ok. And the Catholic church will not use that argument you put forth to support that idea.

That's literally one of the most important/well-known principles of Catholic moral theology, so, yes, they do use that argument to support that idea. It's a way of protecting the actualized life of the mother over the potential life of the fetus when the mother's health is at risk. This argument is also used by the Catholic church to justify an "INDIRECT ABORTION" in most ectopic pregnancies.

It's a pretty radical idea to categorically say no abortion is morally ok, even when the life of the mother is at stake. Even a large majority of the most conservative pro-lifers still allow this exception.

I think you are confusing the meaning of unintended harm to the fetus. This is in no way an abortion. The church is saying that if the woman has surgery to remove cancer, that they will not consider it an evil act if the fetus dies as an unintended consequence. This is in no way an abortion or indirect abortion. And this is even considered a gray subject matter for the church. If you read the first sentence of the answer to the following question, it pretty much says that the church would never consider or support an abortion, no matter the greater good.

Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion if it is needed to save a woman’s life?

A: We may never perform an intrinsically evil act even to bring about a great good. For example, a just society cannot intentionally kill innocent civilians in a war, even for the praiseworthy goal of ending a conflict quickly and saving many lives. Likewise, in the context of pregnancy, a woman may not be killed in order to save the life of her child, and a child may not be killed in order to save the life of his mother. However, the Church does permit morally neutral medical procedures designed to save a pregnant woman’s life that may have an unintended side-effect of causing a child to die in the womb, such as the removal of a cancerous uterus.

All that is is a semantical argument. Sure, some people don't want to label it as "abortion" at all because the term already has a negative connotation in their minds. But virtually every theologian and ethicist that I've read distinguish between the two as direct or indirect. Of course, the Pope won't use that language because most people already have that ideal in their mind, but most experts in the field still label it as abortion. Direct abortions are unjustified, but indirect abortions, i.e. those actions intended to save the mother's life while still passing the PDE, are justified.

We're not disagreeing about anything about the PDE; we just disagree about the meaning of abortion. It's just like the killing/murder distinction. I'm claiming that abortion is similar to the prior term killing where it can be justified or unjustified. You're claiming that abortion, by definition, is unjustified, just like murder. Maybe the more conservative Papal stream of thought harbors that notion of abortion, but most theologians and bioethicists, Catholic or otherwise, don't put it in such narrow terms. In fact, if you denote it the way you are, then the Catholic Church is the only institution in the world that does not believe in any type of "justifiable abortion," but, then again, this is also coming from the religious organization that holds birth control as a sin even though 90% of Catholics disagree with that belief and do not follow it themselves. 

Finally, though your interpretation might work for the case of the cancerous womb, how does it work for ectopic pregnancy, ultimatey the only other case of "abortion" that Catholics allow through the PDE? In the case of the cancerous womb, you can say that the cancerous womb was prior to or unrelated to the fetus, i.e. the cancer had to be removed no matter what. However, in ectopic pregnancy the fetus in the fallopian tube is the direct reason for the need for removal. Though removal of the fetus is UNINTENDED AND NOT THE TRUE INTENTION of the operation, the fetus is the reason the tube needs to be removed, so it doesn't make sense to describe it as some other medical procedure and not call it by its true name, justified abortion. By removing the fallopian tube that the fetus is in, the act passes the PDE and is ultimately an INDIRECT ABORTION since it didn't do anything DIRECTLY to the fetus. DIRECTLY removing the fetus from the womb or fallopian tube doesn't pass the PDE because it is a DIRECT ABORTION performing a morally evil act on the fetus itself.

So this really all boils down to semantics.

[jpotter33]

The Catholic Church is a bigger problem than either tanking or abortion. Now, back to sports talk.

Haha yeah, I kind of figured there would end up being some talk of abortion instead of basketball, but I just thought it was a pretty neat concept to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable tank jobs.

[KGs Knee]

Regardless of your stance on abortion, this has to be one of the most ludicrous thread topics I have ever seen. Comparing the two subjects in any meaningful way is just tactless and inflammatory.

[jpotter33]

Regardless of your stance on abortion, this has to be one of the most ludicrous thread topics I have ever seen. Comparing the two subjects in any meaningful way is just tactless and inflammatory.

How is that? Who is comparing abortion and basketball? Because I sure wasn't.

I was using a methodology from ethics to try and apply it to the act of tanking, which many people believe has both justifiable and unjustifiable manifestations. In all honesty, it's a fairly accurate method of applying an ethical/theological principle to the act of tanking in basketball due to the similar circumstances. Abortion was just one topic that the PDE is applied to. It's also applied to euthanasia, genetic issues, and issues of war.

So maybe you should read the entire post before criticizing it for something it's not doing.

[jpotter33]

So any real basketball-related comments about this? Lol

[Celtics18]

So any real basketball-related comments about this? Lol

Congratulations on a thoughtful post.  Unfortunately, the whole premise is thrown off for me by your argument that the Sixers' tank job is "morally wrong" while ours isn't.