Rules in games and sports: why a solution to the problem of penalties leads to the rejection of formalism as a useful theory about the nature of sport

Sinclair A. MacRae

Published 2020 in Journal of the Philosophy of Sport

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Bernard Suits and other formalists endorse both the logical incompatibility thesis and the view that rule-breakings resulting in penalties can be a legitimate part of a game. This is what Fred D’Agostino calls ‘the problem of penalties’. In this paper, I reject both Suits’ and D’Agostino’s responses to the problem and argue instead that the solution is to abandon Suits’ view that the constitutive rules of all games are alike. Whereas the logical incompatibility thesis applies to games in which players’ actions are perfectly controlled, it does not apply to sports. This insight not only justifies the rejection of formalism as a theory about the nature of sport but it also helps explain the greater normative complexity of sports, which in turn leads to the idea that in sports ‘cheating’ should be interpreted as a genus.

PUBLICATION RECORD

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CONCEPTS

REFERENCES

Showing 1-23 of 23 references · Page 1 of 1