Fair Play
By: Ken Chapman, Ph.D.
To listen to an audio version of this article, click here:
We have all heard people arguing. Sometimes it sounds a bit funny and sometimes it sounds more serious. However it sounds, I believe we can learn something important from the kinds of things people say when arguing. They say things like: “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” “That’s my seat. I was here first.” “What makes you think it’s O.K. to cut in line?” “Share some of your dessert with me. I always share my dessert with you.” “That’s not fair!”
People say things like this every day. People of every age and stage. Young people. Older people. Rich and poor people. Race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, or national origin make no difference. What fascinates me about these statements (arguments) is that the person who makes them is not just saying the other person’s behavior is unacceptable. They are appealing to some kind of standard of behavior they expect the other person to know and accept. The other person rarely responds: “The hell with your standard!” Nearly always the other person makes the argument that what they are doing does not conflict with the standard. Or, they argue there is some excuse which exempts them from the standard. They insist there is a special reason, in this particular situation, why the rules don’t apply. Therefore, the rule is not being broken.
It looks, in fact, like both individuals have in mind some law or rule of fair play, with which they both agree. After all, the point of arguing is usually to try to prove the other person is wrong, or, at the very least, less right, than you are. There would be no point in doing this if there was no shared understanding about what is right and what is wrong. Just like it makes no sense to say a basketball player has committed a foul if there is no commonly accepted under-standing of a foul.
This law or rule about right and wrong used to be called Natural Law. Today, when people hear the phrase “Natural Law” they think of things like gravity, genetics, or thermo-dynamics. When people in the past referred to “Natural Law,” what they really meant was The Law of Human Nature. The confusion is understandable.
It is understandable because there is a big difference between the laws of physics and The Law of Human Nature. When you drop a coffee cup, the cup does not get to decide whether or not it sails to the floor. The cup does not have the option of flying up to the ceiling. The cup is bound by the laws of physics. In contrast, a person can decide not to obey (accept) The Law of Human Nature.
Think of it this way. There are laws which we disobey at great risk to our health and well-being. If we jumped off a building, we would have no more choice as to how that works out than the coffee cup. We are subject to the laws of physics as are all objects, animals, and vegetables. The Law of Human Nature is different, in that we are free to accept or reject; to obey or disobey.
In the past, this law was called Natural Law because people thought that everyone knew it by “nature” and did not have to be taught the law. They didn’t mean there were no exceptions. There are people who do not know the law. Just like you run into people occasionally who are color-blind. Taken as a whole they thought the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone. And my experience tells me they were right.
If they were wrong, then events like the holocaust, racism, or murder cannot be discussed in terms of right and wrong. Without a generally accepted idea of right and wrong, the holocaust, racism, and murder are tragic events which carry no blame or accountability. The people who did and do such things are no better or worse than those who disagree over the best flavor of ice cream.
It is true that some will argue that this idea of The Law of Human Nature is a fake concept because different cultures, around the world, have different moral concepts. This is not true. There are differences but there has never been a total, or complete, difference. Ancient cultures such as the Hindus, Egyptians, Chinese and Romans shared, along with the cultures of our time, a consistent concept of right and wrong. If you doubt this, try to think of a culture which admired(s) the following behaviors:
• Betraying a loyal friend
• Double-crossing someone who has been kind to you
• Demanding to be paid for something you agreed to do, but did not do
• Refusing to assist a co-worker injured in a workplace accident
• Taking what does not belong to you
• Expecting to be treated with respect while treating everyone around you with disrespect.
It is understandable if you are having trouble naming such a culture. When you try to identify such a time and place you soon discover that it is like trying to find a culture that believes two plus two equals five. That would be considered creative accounting in any culture.
Various cultures have had different opinions as to “whom” they owe loyalty, kindness, and goodwill. Some limit these things to family and clan. Others extend them to the whole of humankind. But every culture recognizes their value.
The most remarkable thing is this: When you do come across a person who believes there is no such thing as right and wrong, hang around! If you’re patient, you’ll soon hear the same person arguing for right and wrong. They may think it is okay when they break a promise, but they won’t let it go if you fail to keep your promise to them. No matter how disrespectful they are of others, they resent any disrespect directed at them. Regardless of what they say verbally, their behavior says they believe there is a right and a wrong in human behavior—just like everyone else.
My experience tells me people believe there is something called right and wrong. People may sometimes be mistaken or confused about them; but they are not a matter of mere preference or opinion any more than gravity. If we don’t believe in good behavior, why do we make so many excuses when we fail to engage in good behavior. The truth is we believe in good behavior so strongly we feel it weighing down on us. As a result, we try to shift blame when we don’t live up to our own high opinion of ourselves. You may have noticed about yourself, what I have noticed about myself. It is only when I behave badly that I try to find an argument or excuse to justify my bad behavior—so I can feel better about myself. I was tired or hungry or worried. As for my good behavior? Well, that’s all me!
Here are two truths to consider. First, human beings, in every time and place, have this curious idea that they should behave in a certain way. And, no matter how hard human beings try, they can’t seem to get rid of the idea. People continue to be people no matter how much time passes or how spectacular our technological advances. People want to be valued and they want to be treated in a manner that confirms their value. Secondly, we do, more often than we would like, fail to live up to our highest opinion of ourselves. Our arguments and behavior clearly suggest we believe there is something called fair play; and, that we feel bound by this idea of fair play. But, try as we may, we occasionally find ourselves doing the very thing we would not want others to do to us. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the people with whom we live and work.
This is why I have found mirrors and windows so helpful. What I have discovered is that the best argument for my value is the value I attach to others. This is expressed best in what I do (behavior) not merely in what I say. In fact, you can hear people in every workplace saying things like this: “She walks the talk,” or, “He does not walk the talk.” This is how we tend to describe someone who behaves consistent with what he/she says, as opposed to merely talking a good game. No one admires the talk minus the walk. We admire those who have enough self-awareness to know the rules of fair play; and enough humility to catch and correct themselves when they jump the guardrail.
This is where “first the mirror and then the window” comes in. Because I believe there is something called right behavior and wrong behavior, I have one eye in the mirror. The eye in the mirror is an effort to make sure I am behaving well before I turn my attention to the behavior of others. After looking in the mirror, I turn my attention to the window. First, I look in the mirror: then I look out the window—at the behavior of others. Fair play is bigger than me. I am bound by fair play and it is reasonable to think others are as well.
Finally, remember this: There’s a right way to treat me; and, therefore, there is a right way for me to treat you. Whether we call this Natural Law or Fair Play, the law has a claim on every human community— including the workplace.
