Harry to Galatasaray

Changing football clubs is normally something that football fans accept as part of life. Noone is neccessarily happy when they lose their best players- but whether its Cardiff City losing Ramsey this summer or Manchester United losing Ronaldo (if they do), it is something that happens to every football club and the alternative, that players would never move, would be a terrible idea. Equally though there are some transfers that just instantly strike you as wrong. Eight years ago, two Leeds fans were stabbed to death when the team travelled to Turkey to play Galatasaray in the UEFA cup, now one of the stars of that team has decided to move to Galatasaray. Harry Kewell in doing that has asked Leeds fans to move on and recognise the reality of modern football- that stars go where the money is, and that not to move would be to damage his career.

Well Kewell may argue that, and some of the more idiotic Leeds fans would definitely be wrong to take out reprisals upon the Australian forward. But it still doesn't alter the fact that what Kewell is doing is immoral. The fans of Galatasaray have not changed. Turkish football is still accompanied by unpleasant scenes and violence- for what is afterall only a game (anyone who says otherwise demonstrates that their idiocy is indeed authentic). There are two points here worth discussing: one is that morality still operates within the market. Just because someone offers you more money to do something, doesn't make that something right. It is an interesting thing to see, as soon as you do understand that principle, you can comprehend the fact that whenever a company performs an illegal or immoral act, those performing that act are culpable no less for the fact that they have been ordered to perform the act. Furthermore if corporate interest is not a moral defence, when it comes down to it ethics trumps economics.

But why is this immoral? Well Kewell is moving to a side whose fans murdered people who had gone to Turkey in order to support him and his teammates. The position of fans in football is often taken for granted and ignored- they are told to grow up and shut up, until it comes to season ticket sales and replica shirts. Kewell has made a lot of money off the fans who support his activity- no matter that there is no legal obligation or no economic obligation, there is a moral obligation for him to reciprocate their loyalty. Over years at Leeds, Kewell was supported and cheered by the Elland Road faithful. To go to a club where some of them were murdered, a club that has never acknowledged that murder, is to slap them in the face. To go to a traditional footballing rival is a decision that is absolutely fine- rivalries in football are not serious- but murder is serious. And if we consider that a player has reciprocal obligations to those that support his work, then he ought to avoid such a symbolic identification with those thugs that have in the past attacked the supporters who lauded him.

That this is immoral is beyond the question- Kewell shouldn't be banned from moving. Morality and law are different things in a liberal state. But that does not mean that he should not be condemned. The Australian has acted foolishly- and has acted in a way to demonstrate that money drives him, not consideration for others- like a corporate lawyer or a business man who makes their living from firing small people in order to replenish a good salary, Kewell has revealed himself to be longsighted enough to see the main chance, but blind to the moral judgements that he should be making.

For Discussion: Not Saussure On Where Legislation Comes From

I'm going to try, when guest blogging, to spotlight other bloggers and bring attention to their old posts. Today's victim is Not Saussure, who had a post on abortion and the law in June that deserves a second look. There are rich and thoughtful things in the comments and the post itself. I'm already hoping for Gracchi to get back. This is nerve wracking, writing for a blog with an audience.

It is, quite simply, wrong for MPs to legislate on primarily theological grounds. The reason we have laws against murder and theft are not, as I keep on saying, because God forbids such activities (though I believe He does) but because you can’t have any sort of complex society in which people can go around murdering and robbing people with impunity. Society can, however, knock along reasonably well despite some of its members committing adultery and worshipping graven images, which is why we don’t ban those activities despite the fact that we have it on equally good authority that The Almighty disapproves of them, too.

- Not Saussure, "Nadine Dorries MP On Abortion," 6.6.2007

Not Saussure's post is very well-done, and I think it worth revisiting and challenging for the sake of argument only. The quote above seems to imply that God is part of a simpler view of the world, but that societies - which quite possibly constitute the world - can be irreducibly complex. So perhaps people start thinking that the reason why murder and robbery are wrong is because of God, and heck, throw in some laws about adultery and not having intercourse with goats, and one can keep a village orderly and in fear of God.

But the more complicated a society gets, the more we realize the real reason behind the law: the simple society really wasn't that simple. It actually was complex. As we discover complexity, some laws stand, others fade away. So it is possible for society now, perhaps, to engage in things sinful then.

In the comments to the post linked above speaks Heraklites:

“The reason we have laws against murder [is] because you can’t have any sort of complex society in which people can go around murdering … with impunity.”

But are laws not often determined more by moral sentiments than by utilitarian arguments? And are moral sentiments not typically derived from some belief system or other? Most people seem to have moral beliefs which cannot strictly be justified, some based on religion, some not.

If we take the question to be "What is the origin of law?" then we seem to have two very different ideas on what the complexity/simplicity of society means. The concept of rationality tied to enlightened self-interest sees (at least here) morality as changeable. To the degree one accepts that law reflects morality or sets criteria for which moralities are permissible, one also is saying the complexity of society is what generates the truest laws, the ones we will in effect obey for maximum satisfaction.

I guess my questions are: What do you take Heraklites' comment - I've only quoted part, to be sure - to be hinting at? Are moral sentiments simple? Or are they a complex? Where does religion fall in - is it always not justifiable "strictly," and what is the relation between a system of beliefs and rationality? Are beliefs always irrational? Proto-rational?