Michael Gebhardt SS-351 E01 Ethics An Analysis of the Ethics of Airsoft and Other Physical Sports

Throughout history sports have served as a social connection, a way for people to gather and test their skills against one another. In recent years, the introduction of shooting sports such as paintball and laser tag allows players to engage in non-lethal competitions against live targets. Players participate to prove who is the most capable shooter and tactician, and test the physical and mental capabilities of the participants. A similar sport called airsoft is identical is all respects to the previously mentioned activities aside from one major detail: there is no reliable way to register hits. Laser tag uses light beams and sensors to track combat, and paintballs leave a blotch of paint on the target. While companies make marker BBs, or even small scale paint BBs, these are rarely used as they more often than not foul airsoft guns used to play and are more expensive than plastic BBs, biodegradable or otherwise. Because the vast majority of airsoft competitors use ammunition without marking ability, the game is entirely reliant upon the participating players reliably admitting when they are tagged. However, personal experience demonstrates numerous instances of a player not admitting they were hit. One phrase most airsoft players have heard or shouted at some point while playing is the infamous Call your hits! Even with referees at official fields, no one is infallible and the referees cannot watch every player at once. Each player must decide if they will ignore a hit to gain an advantage over honest opponents, or admit that they have been fairly tagged. However not all instances are cut and dried. For instance, the wind easily affect the BBs mid-flight, and breezy weather can often soften the impacts to such a point that, under the usual long sleeve and pants attire, are difficult to feel. In the heat of a pitched game, someone may not even realize they are being hit. Arguments arise from people not calling hits, or even from being fired upon more than necessary because players wanted to encourage honesty by providing the alternative of constant, painful impacts until defeat is admitted. This can result in not only poor player

relations, but potential injury. Airsoft, when played irresponsibly, can be a very dangerous sport. Honesty is not only integral to maintaining player relations and accurate results of simulated combat, but for player safety. Calling hits is the best way to avoid being shot more than necessary and increasing the threshold for injury to occur. Dishonest players often find themselves sporting welts from close range fire. As a result, honest players are now called into question for risking the safety of others. Airsoft fields regularly eject dishonest or overly zealous players, specifically to avoid the situations listed previously. Safety and integrity are the highest priority to field owners, as their business relies upon the favor of players who want to have the most competitive and rewarding experience. No one enjoys losing because someone broke an established and agreed rule. Peter Mewett, however, argues that sports do not exist separate of cheaters. In his article, he discusses how sport[s] means different things for the working classes than it has for the upper classes. (5) In airsoft, there is a distinct gap between new, less experienced and equipped players and those who have afforded much time and money for the sport. Often, the difference in equipment quality tilts the odds in favor of the upper class airsoft players. In order to compensate, it could be considered reasonable to ignore glancing impacts, ricochets, or those that could otherwise be questioned. Additionally, he states that cheating has a self-regulatory quality: a [participant] will cheat in a way that maintains the officials face. (5) This sort of under the table arrangement would essentially allow cheaters to tip the scales without heavily unbalancing the game. The idea is to not ignore blatant hits, but to call the obvious hits and let glancing blows aside. In the airsoft mind, these could be considered flesh wounds, where the imagined bullet has merely grazed the target. The inherent risk however is determining the bounds of such a method. With such a grey area the difference between a glance and a hit

becomes distinctly blurred, and relies completely on the eyes of others to determine. On the subject of others, the influence of a persons team heavily affects moral decisions on the field. Most fields allow players to maintain private groups when teams are decided. The ethics shared between team members has a decided impact upon individual player ethics. J. Brent Crouch presents that fact that the majority of player interactions occur prior to, during, and after training. They occur when traveling to and from competitions. And they occur in times of relaxation away from the sport, (1) most often with regular team or group members. If several members of the group agree that a certain degree of cheating is acceptable to accomplish a win, then the likelihood of team members desiring to contribute to this consensus goes up. In order to try to better fit as a group, a person is loyal when he or she consciously intends to serve the cause, and actually performs concrete actions aimed toward it. (1) So if a group wanted to win and was willing to ignore hits to do so, anyone loyal to the group would be likely to help achieve that goal. However, the opposite is true that a team dedicated to honesty would conduct themselves collectively as honest players. In the end, public opinion of the teams may affect their play experience based upon action on the field. In the sense of public opinion, Western culture has a very decided ethical bent that cheating is not morally acceptable. But does this apply to all cultures? Before an ethical judgment can be rendered, it has to have an origin. Milan Hosta begs the question: where do we make our judgments from? We have to stand somewhere; we have to have some footing not to be sucked into a cultural vacuum. (3) But determining which ethical standpoint is appropriate for analyzing the best solution for such a concern is not as simple as picking a side. Ed Hancox makes an important point that, while athletes choose to take part in an event and abide by its rules, we cannot choose what society we are born into, nor is there an equivalent opt-out system

from society. So to a certain degree, social relativism has a part to play in how to analyze any sport. On the local stage, this is easily facilitated, but on the international stage we come back to the issue of determining the most appropriate ethics upon which to base such analysis. To a great degree, logic is not the only factor influencing decisions in a sports environment. Hosta established that, we are aware of the importance of the sense of ethos of the game and sense for an emotional attachment to it.(3) Humans are not entirely rational beings, and sports are often a means to express emotion, and even ethics. Because of the direct involvement of others, a sport allows us to express our world outlook. Instead of only asking what the ethics of sports should be, sports can be used to explore the ethics of individuals and groups. A mix of ethics is what often leads to conflicts, but tolerance has led to many acceptable resolutions or compromises that allow sports to move forward and be societally flexible. Personally, however, the purpose of airsoft dictates a measure of the ethics involved. The game is as much about practicing moral judgment and sportsmanship as it is about victory. Participating allows the demonstration of not only tactical skill and physical ability, but integrity and cooperation with those of clashing interest. It is a rare occasion to desire an opponent to triumph over oneself, so to admit being bested without examinable proof say much about the individual admitting defeat. When cheating is encountered, it cheapens the experience and shakes the faith players have in each other. Robert Lipsyte asks a familiar question about this subject, asking, Wasn't sports supposed to be that one fair place where the white lines defined the boundaries of what was right and what was wrong?" (4) In an unfair world, sports are intended to be the one place people always have the opportunity to practice ethical consideration. But with a constant focus on the need to win, that has shifted into a murky area where people begin to question if cheating is such a moral dilemma.

To conclude, it is my personal belief that airsoft players should, even under uncertain circumstances, call their hits. The considerations for this assertion are concerns of trustworthiness, safety, and personal welfare. In regards to trustworthiness, once the foundation of trust is broken it is difficult to repair. Once players become tired of being unable to reliable count on honest success or defeat, the less inclined they are to play, and the negative impact upon the cheaters social standing is a poor state for any individual. Safety is the number one consideration in airsoft, and should an individual fail to call their hits, the number of subsequent shots will increase to a dangerous volume of fire. An individual should avoid putting himself or any others in a situation that would involve unnecessary volume of fire. And finally, the financial aspect of the game encourages players to expend ammunition wisely, and for every hit that isnt called, a BB is wasted. The airsoft community spends a good deal of money purchasing equipment and services that allow them to play, but such money is wasted if the desired, balanced, but challenged game is compromised by the dishonesty of even a few I individuals. Honesty, in the case of airsoft, is the ultimate ethical goal.

References: 1) Crouch, J. Brent. "Gender, Sports, And The Ethics Of Teammates: Toward An Outline Of A Philosophy Of Sport In The American Grain." Journal Of Speculative Philosophy 23.2 (2009): 118-127. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

2) Hancox, Ed. "All In The Game." New Statesman 137.4914 (2008): 48. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.

3) Hosta, Milan. "Ethics And Sport: Whose Ethics, Which Ethos -- A Prolegomenon ." Kinesiology 40.1 (2008): 89-95. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.

4) Lipsyte, Robert. "Cheating wends way from youth sports to business." USA Today n.d.: MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 1 Mar. 2012

5) Mewett, Peter G. "Discourses Of Deception: Cheating In Professional Running." Australian Journal Of Anthropology 13.3 (2002): 292. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.