Case Study 8.8: “Is Lying Always Lying?” documents the University of Michigan Men’s Basketball scandal surrounding Ed Martin, a booster, and the faction of players known as the Fab Five. The Fab Five consisted of the following players: Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson. To debrief the case study, discussed was how Ed Martin was indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Detroit for being accused of laundering $616,000 dollars from illegal gambling operations. He laundered his funds by lending money to players such as Chris Webber and the Fab Five during the 1992 and 1993 seasons in which the University of Michigan Wolverines made it to the NCAA National Championship Game. Initially, the University held three
…show more content…
The case study presents the idea that it is morally defensible to lie to the NCCA because it isn’t perjury, but one should not lie to the grand jury because the potential penalty is greatly more severe (Malloy et al. 2003). The question here is, is it ever okay to lie? Although I am aware of the potential flaws of this mindset, it can be argued that sometimes it is okay to life if the ends justify the means. It reminds me of the concept of utilitarianism, the belief that the only good worth pursuing is pleasure of happiness (DeSensi & Rosenberg 2010). A subset of this belief, rule utilitarianism, argues that one should formulate a general rule that, when followed, would more consistently lead to a greater amount of happiness (DeSensi & Rosenberg 2010). From this specific case study, I think the players along with their lawyer were acting in a manner that supports this belief. More than getting in trouble, I believe they were trying to protect all parties involved. So when they were presented with the decision on whether to lie or not, they chose to lie in hope to keep certain people happy until the potential consequences became to heavy to deal with. It is safe to say that they Fab Five when through the ethical decision-making process during this whole ordeal. The fourth step: the selection of the ideal solution, and, the sixth step: the actual decision, are not always the same. From perspective presented I would argue that these are the steps the parties involved struggled with. Pinpointing a decision that is good, right, and authentic can be a difficult task to truly achieve (Malloy et al.
The case study presents the idea that it is morally defensible to lie to the NCCA because it isn’t perjury, but one should not lie to the grand jury because the potential penalty is greatly more severe (Malloy et al. 2003). The question here is, is it ever okay to lie? Although I am aware of the potential flaws of this mindset, it can be argued that sometimes it is okay to life if the ends justify the means. It reminds me of the concept of utilitarianism, the belief that the only good worth pursuing is pleasure of happiness (DeSensi & Rosenberg 2010). A subset of this belief, rule utilitarianism, argues that one should formulate a general rule that, when followed, would more consistently lead to a greater amount of happiness (DeSensi & Rosenberg 2010). From this specific case study, I think the players along with their lawyer were acting in a manner that supports this belief. More than getting in trouble, I believe they were trying to protect all parties involved. So when they were presented with the decision on whether to lie or not, they chose to lie in hope to keep certain people happy until the potential consequences became to heavy to deal with. It is safe to say that they Fab Five when through the ethical decision-making process during this whole ordeal. The fourth step: the selection of the ideal solution, and, the sixth step: the actual decision, are not always the same. From perspective presented I would argue that these are the steps the parties involved struggled with. Pinpointing a decision that is good, right, and authentic can be a difficult task to truly achieve (Malloy et al.