Tigers manager Brad Ausmus, the quiet, Ivy League-educated manager of the struggling Detroit Tigers in the American League, snapped in frustration during last Monday’s game. He cursed, he raged, he threw dirt, he threw his cap, he took off his hoodie and draped it over home plate. Some of his X-rated remarks were captured by microphones and broadcast to the nation. Naturally, such conduct is frowned upon by MLB umpires, so he was thrown out of the game, suspended and fined.
Now he is auctioning the hoodie and cap from his tirade on the web. Here’s part of the description:
” Neither item has been washed since the May 16 game and both items show dirt consistent with being placed or tossed on the field.”
Bidding is approaching $5000. The auction website adds: “Neither item has been washed since the May 16 game and both items show dirt consistent with being placed or tossed on the field. Both items feature the #7, as seen in the photos.” Bidding will close on Wednesday.
Your annoying Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is….
Is auctioning the items used by Ausmus in his on-field tantrum as unethical, more unethical, or less unethical than George Zimmerman’s auctioning the gun that he used to defend himself against Trayvon Martin, resulting in the teen’s death?
You’re likely to hate this, but my answer is that it is more unethical.
Let’s compare the gun and the jersey/cap, the circumstances that made them valuable, and the implications of their respective sales.
Zimmerman’s gun:
As I have already explained, there is nothing unethical about Zimmerman auctioning off his own property and getting fair market value for it based on its historical significance. which is genuine. The episode ruined his life; and the people most likely to be bothered by the auction are the same people who set out to ruin his life, and those who refuse to accept that he was not out to shoot Martin because of racism that he had managed to keep secret up to that point.
The auction of the gun does not in any way trivialize the incident. It can’t be trivialized, certainly not by Zimmerman. One man is dead, the other is ruined.
Zimmerman’s use of the gun was neither illegal nor wrong. That was the verdict in the trial, and that’s what the record shows. He had a right to use it as he did.
No matter what the gun brings at auction, no one could argue that the amount received made the incident profitable to Zimmerman. No one, even having seen what the gun brought on the market, would try to make another gun similarly valuable by duplicating Zimmerman’s conduct.
Ausmus’s hoodie and cap:
Ausmus intentionally created the incident that gave the items value. He wasn’t forced into doing it. He knew he was violating rules while he did it.
By turning his rampage into profit, he is simultaneously mocking the incident, encouraging fans to buy the instruments of poor sportsmanship, and undermining the message sent by the suspension and fine that such conduct is unacceptable.
If the items are sufficiently profitable at auction, someone might decide that a high-profile on-field tantrum could be profitable. I liken this to convicted criminals making money by writing books about their crimes, a transaction that is forbidden by law in many states. Ausmus is literally making money out of intentional conduct that violated the rules of his sport. (Note: Ausmus has designated the proceeds for charity; Zimmerman has designated his proceeds for political advocacy. I see no difference, ethically. The fact that MLB is doing the auctioning is troubling, and represents convoluted ethics reasoning on its part. )
While the underlying incidents are not comparable in their importance, impact or consequences, the fact remains: Zimmerman’s auction wasn’t unethical.
Ausmus’s auction is.
Ethics Alarms 
I would question whether Ausmus even has a right to sell these items. My guess is that they were issued to him by the Tiger’s organization, and they would, therefore, retain a proprietary interest in the items. But, all this proves is that I know nothing about the law.
John Rawls has to be spinning in his grave.
I don’t think Rawls would be any help at all in this situation.
I’d love to read your Rawls-style analysis, though.
Yeah, George’s life is just ruined.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/2000_1000/55dfe7cc1d00006e00146261.jpeg?cache=4cxistuohl
Because selfies tell you everything. Last I checked, he had no job, no home, and is constantly expecting someone to pop him off. He can’t spit on the sidewalk without getting a hate post from Gawker. Yeah, it’s paradise.
Lisa,
Please explain, in detail, what the photo you linked to tells you about Zimmerman?
I can answer that. Those who hate Zimmerman as a result of having pronounced him guilty of murder and racism believe that if he should be miserable ever second of his life and wallowing in shame and poverty, and the photo proves that for a second he could smile confidently, a right he no longer deserves.
If that’s not it, then I have no idea.
Did he kill the umpire?
Metaphorically, yes.
Here’s another mystery: I’m getting almost no spam anymore. I was getting almost a thousand spammed messages a day for while there. Go figure.
Spam that is not replied to usually goes away after a few weeks.
Say it ain’t so Brad! Maybe the charity that he donates his proceeds to should involve anger management.
MLB is conducting the auction??? What???
This must be a PR stunt spawned in the league offices. That’s terrible. I suspect this has been out of Ausmus’s hands entirely.
Clearly, baseball has sold its soul to the “any publicity is good publicity” crowd. I wonder what the umpires’ union are the umpire supervisors in the league offices think of this. They must be justifiably outraged.
Institutional suicide. A strange impulse. Baseball eating its own.
From a utilitarian perspective, Ausmus’ actions are less unethical than Zimmerman’s. Even assuming the worst case scenario – that selling the paraphernalia is a 100% proof-positive method of inciting similar actions, the result of Ausmus’ sale of the gear would be a sharp increase in managers of baseball teams (or potentially players and/or fans) verbally abusing umpires. Correspondingly, anyone who is moved to emulate Zimmerman will engage in vigilante policing, ethnic stereotyping, aggressive behavior verging on recklessness (in the lay rather than legal sense), and ultimately violent confrontations which can easily escalate to death. While poor sportsmanship certainly isn’t a desirable outcome, the harm that results from actions emulating Ausmus is much less than the harm which would result from any mimicry of Zimmerman. Of course, this assumes that we all view racial stereotyping as a greater evil than the degradation of the unwritten traditions surrounding baseball, potentially including its hallowed place in our national culture. That seems to be a fairly uncontroversial assumption, but as the rise of Trump has shown, it is not one which can be universally made these days.
“Is auctioning the items used by Ausmus in his on-field tantrum as unethical, more unethical, or less unethical than George Zimmerman’s auctioning the gun that he used to defend himself against Trayvon Martin, resulting in the teen’s death?”
“As I have already explained, there is nothing unethical about Zimmerman auctioning off his own property”
Semantic snivelry:
How can something be more than, less than or as unethical as something that has been determined to be NOT unethical to begin with?
I agree; sloppily phrased, though still clear. It is also arguably a trick question: many here do not agree that George’s auction was ethical, and they are, in fact, who the question was substantially aiming at, so if the question assumed the conclusion of the previous essay (hence the “you’re going to hate this” come on), there would be no quiz. How could the question be phrased to not preclude the basis for controversy?
Nope, it’s fine. I was being a punk.
I have theorized that THIS issue, and not the Trump-Hillary dilemma, was a main culprit in the sudden drop-off of EA traffic. People really get angry about the assertion that Zimmerman isn’t a monster, and regard such a position—which is the only one consistent with facts rather than “narrative” and ideology—-inherently unethical.
“If the items are sufficiently profitable at auction, someone might decide that a high-profile on-field tantrum could be profitable.”
Would that go along with the Texas Ranger’s Odor getting the free food for life for punching the Blue Jay’s Bautista during a game? Granted it’s from a private company, but he’s profiting from his part of a tantrum.
Yes! That was disgusting.
I concur with the logic and conclusion behind the quiz. Representing an event created by one’s own momentary weakness of character as somehow enough to add value to ordinary clothing weakens people’s minds and uses that weakness to profit from doing something pointlessly destructive. Welcome to reality television.
I’m wondering, though: how it is constitutional to legally prohibit people from selling books about their criminal exploits? Wouldn’t that violate the First Amendment? Or is it just that they can’t keep the money? Maybe we’ve talked about this before; I’m getting deja vu.
Yes. And recently no less.
Though I think there may be another discussion also.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/12/02/ethics-quiz-the-barefoot-bandit-cashes-in-sort-of/
Ah, I’d meant to comment on that, but I was rather busy with work at the time. Thanks!
It still sounds like an infringement of people’s First Amendment rights to prevent people from publishing the book, but I suppose preventing them from profiting from the book would be legal and ethical. Preventing someone from profiting from self-perpetuating fame, however… that’s a matter for chaotic abilities, not purely orderly ones. It requires the fame be displaced by something more interesting.
Evidently my imbedded link was broken.