Rules are Rules: children and Adults

In the year 1995, 20 kids from the communities of Verdugo and Vaquero and who part of the little league all star team of the Southern California participated in a tournament organized by the non profit Tim Herman Foundation which is organized for 9 year old ball player who had died of a heart condition last year. This ball tournament was meant to to raise money for the communities and to honor the memory of a Local child who had a heart condion and died on the year of 1994.

However, their participation have disqualified them to be able to play to the upcoming district competition. For the Regulation IV stipulated that no more than six players from a little league tounament team "may participate on other teams except authorized elementary and junior high school teams", and therefore the punishment. In response to this, an appeal was made based on the fact that their participation on that tournament was meant to benefit the local community. Nevertheless, the appeal was denied and the decision was maintained. With the decision unchanged, both teams had decided to withdrawal their teams from the games.


__________________________________________

in order to assess whether the little leaguers shoudl have been pushinesd or not, I will use the deontological perspective and teleological perspective in order assess teh decisions made by the Headquarters of the little league. Deontologically speaking, one should proceed according to the rules that are imposed by society or organizattion that one is affiliated with, and in this occasion, the players were associated and under the rules of the Minor League. Therefore, from this perspective, the Little League Headquarted was right to act upon this violation, for it was stated under the regulation IV that no more than six players from a little league tournament team "may participate on another team except authorized elementary and junior high school". However, this rule does not clarify what kinds of punishment should be enacted and who should be punished. It must be highlighted that the players are under age and are not considered adults, and specially in this circumstances, they might not have been aware of these pontential harms that they were going to suffer by playing in that fundraising event. Therefore I believe it was not right for the Little league headquarters to punish the kids for having participated in that event. If one were te be penalized, it should have been the coaches or the club, for they are the ones responsibles.

However, I must say that it was right of the Minor League baseball association act onto the violation, for they have infriged the rules, and when one breaks the rules and it goes unpunished, the tendency, according to hobbes, is that humans will follow the trend and the egotistical and brutish nature of human beings will take the best of the situation, and chaoes will be set. It is better to inforce the rules so harmony and a better flow of things can be attained.


Also, even if the nature of the action, in this case the participation of these little leagues players in the benefit tournament, was good, it doesnt mean it was fair. The regulation set by the league, was designed to keep the competition levels more leveled by not allowng some players to ain an unfair advantage by joining other teams and gaining more experience, and considering that all the other teams besides verdugo and vaquero were under this rule, whethere the tournament was only for fun, for charity, or for a good cause, it does not change the fact that these kids have gained more experience as a teeam, while others, because of this specific rule, were not able to join any other competion and gain some more exposure to competion.

From the lens of teleology, Mill's argued that decision should be taken in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In other words, decisions should be made in order to attain thet greatest benefit for the majority. In this case, the question is whethere the decision of banning the players from playing the year had actually created the greatest good for the majority. I believe that by punishing the players the little league have harmed the players a great deal. First of all, in terms of competition, the fact that they infringed one rule which was to not allow them to play and gain an unfair advantage of others, does not justify the kind of punishment applie. If players are banned to play for the entire season, then they would fall much far behind thant all the other players, by a much greater extent than they had gained advantage by playing in the fund raising tournament. Second, some of the players were in their last year of elligibility of playing at the little league baseball. That specefic year could had been crucial for some playersto gain exposure or for future prospects in their baseball career prospects. Third, the punishment would go beyond the players. It would hurt the parents aswell, for they had invested money, time, and effort in order to train and have the kids to have a chance to play baseball. fourth, this would also hurt the image of little league association. The association that punishes players of trying to give back to the community and support a good cause is definetly not the image the association would want to have. As a matter of fact, comments, and the tones of the articles form LA times, portrayed the tone of dissapointment of the media with the decisio of the Little League association. In the article by David E Brady, majority of article exposes favorable arguments for the participation of the players in the fund raising tournament and opposing arguments and facts for the pusnihsment imposed by the Little league baseball association. For example, the article presents argumetns from coaches and tim hermans father saying that the league was only meant for kids to have fun, and were intended to "highlight children as gifts". It even exposes arugments saying that this decision was the result of personal conflict between the head of the little league baseball and the two coaches who had clashes before this incident.

also for the kids, the punishement shouldn't have been acted upon them it would be punishing a good behavior, a good act that kids were doing, and as a consequence, doing good things such as getting back to your communities would be negatively associated with punishment, and if humans are selfish by nature according to hobbes, this punishment would only feed the egoism and selfishness of those kids. If anything, the little league should encourage such behaviour for it would encourage all the other little league teams to contribute to their own communities, thus contributing to the greater good.