Topics Ethics

Question My friend and I were debating about what is considered cheating and what would simply be considered unethical behavior. Suppose two people (call them A and B) were in a weight loss competition. Every Monday the two of them would weigh-in, and the first person to reach the target weight goal would win the contest. Let's assume that this is a friendly competition and the real objective for both participants was weight loss. Both of us agreed that the following would clearly be cheating: a) Prior to weigh-in, A alters the mechanics of the scale resulting in a win for himself. b) A slips some weight-gain contents into B's food without anyone knowing. And, we both agreed that the following would not be cheating: c) A tells B that he has been eating a lot of fatty foods and has not been exercising lately. A has actually been eating healthy meals and also has been hitting the gym daily. The lie was told with the intention of lowering the sense of urgency and reduce the effort put forth by B. Now, here is where we had a disagreement. What if A invites B to get some fat-free coffee, but earlier in the day, A paid off the coffee barista so that B's "fat-free" coffee would actually include real creme and not skim milk? B accepts A's invitation, but he knows full well that they are in the middle of a competition. Would this be cheating on A's part, or would this merely constitute unethical behavior? How is this different than bluffing in poker or hustling someone in pool via sandbagging? Are b) and c) from above clearly different?

Accepted:
February 2, 2008

Comments

There are two sorts of questions here, I think. The first is the one you're actually asking: does the trick with the barista count as cheating – as a violation of the rules that define the game – and not just as doing something wrong? The second question is what settles questions like this.

On the first question, the cases you agree on suggest this: tampering is out by the rules of this game, but misleading your opponent about your own progress, etc. is okay. And if direct tampering is out, it's hard to see why getting someone to do the dirty work would be in. That means it would be cheating to hire someone to rig the scales, and it would be cheating to pay someone to lace the coffee in your opponent's thermos -- coffee you can assume he planned to drink anyway. But the case you describe is a matter of tricking him into doing something he might not otherwise have done and might decide not to do exactly because he knows that fibbing is part of the game. So what's the right answer? Is it cheating?

It's pretty clear that the issue isn't whether it was you or the barista who fattened up the coffee. (And by the way, a tablespoon of whipping cream has 52 calories, compared to 6 for a tablespoon of skim milk – just in case you were curious...) The question is what sorts of misrepresentation are allowed in this particular game. The case you label c) is a lie to affect your opponent's motivation. The case we're puzzling about is a lie to get him to do something more directly to himself. It's a step beyond case c), but is it a step too far?

My answer is to think that there isn't an answer – at least not yet. One way to go would be to say that if someone could reasonably see the case as cheating (that applies here, I think), then count it as cheating. That's probably a good rule to use if you want to stay friends, but whether it's the answer is another matter. Worse, there will be cases where reasonable people can disagree about whether it's reasonable to see the case as cheating.

What would count as settling a case like this? Explicit agreement is one obvious possibility, and that's an important difference between this example and ethical questions. Ethical questions can't be settled by agreement or fiat (though I'm glossing over some tricky issues about "constructive" views of morality.) Certain kinds of legal questions can be, and in organized sports we often invest referees with this sort of authority. So if this were a practical matter, my suggestion would be to pick someone you both see as fair and neutral, and go with what he or she says. But the larger question here is actually quite interesting: what counts as "following the rules" when the rules aren't explicit enough to settle things straightforwardly, but when everyone wants the game to go on ? There are plenty of ways to approach this problem. What seems clear is that there won't always be an answer, but there might be a lot to be learned by thinking through the possibilities.