I cannot escape from the idea that “the right to know” is more often an excuse for people to be nosy. As someone who doesn’t know very much about Tiger Woods and has absolutely no interest whatsoever in what he might have done, I would say the public does not have a right to know.
But what about “the carefully crafted image argument offered?
If you buy a product because you trust Tiger’s image, his trustworthiness can be assessed by
whether the product is what he says it is. Now if we open the discussion to big ticket items,
the question is why would you purchase them based soley on his
word.
If Tiger Woods said buy X brand of golfing equipment, I’d consider it, but If he said buy X brand of computer or car, I fail to see why his advice is superior to anyone else’s.
Indeed,it seems to me that what people mean by “the right to know,
is they want to be titillated, and therefore they want the right to get the dirt.
Even if we grant the “right to know” based on the crafted public image,this is not the same as saying people have a right to dig through, garbage, peek in windows
and follow someone around till they
find something.
Perhaps, the question should be why should we need to know anything about his private life when there are other ways to evaluate his trustworthiness.
The validity of such a right
can be tested precisely on those grounds. We can call this sp1ke0k1ll3r’s razor: One should not violate another’s privacy beyond necessity. And one should not define necessity in a shallow,
vulgar manner. Why don’t we call a spade a spade and talk about whether there is a right to snoop?
That is the real issue here.
Now, as to your statement:
“While the principle of harm does seem to be a reasonable basis for such a right, it might seem to be rather limited. After all, intuitively it would seem that people have a right to know things even when these things are not a matter of harm.”
Sure in the same way that the states ability to search you or you property is “rather limited”
The claim that something is “rather limited” or that “intuitively it would seem that…”
is not philosophy.If you think there should be another criteria
other than harm, name it and lets talk about why we might need it.

Good grief! I certainly won’t purchase a product because of the representative! They are PAID… it is a job for them! I buy Nike because they are a good product for me, not because of an endorsement. Doesn’t anyone know/think/realize that journalists make up crap to earn their living? They fill in the gaps of their stories with assumptions, speculations, and whatever sounds like it might sell!
President Obama is no better than I am. Nor is Tiger Woods. They are just different. The Prez had aspirations of the office. I did not. Tiger Woods had golf training in his youth. I did not.
We are not hearing all truth about his life, or wife.
Infidelity is wrong. But it is often just one of life’s many lessons learned the hard way. PS A lesson truly learned is one not repeated, for any reason.

It seems to me that arguing the public’s right to know about Tiger Wood’s personal life is hard work.

I can buy Mike’s speculation that, if Mr. Wood has represented himself to the public as someone who does not have extra-marital sexual affairs in order to sell products to the public then a right to know if this representation is false seems reasonable. But does generally trading on a “clean” image go as far as such a representation? (We haven’t even yet raised the chestnut of role models, self-appointed or otherwise.)

The rights to information in cases like this seem of only passing interest as a justification of journo’s actions: public schadenfreude is no less attractive for the application of a dab of slightly-stretched ethics.

And shall we start on the ethics of reading a bedtime story to one’s child in an advertisement?

Or getting apostrophes in the wrong place?

Karebaria,
Did I mess up my apostrophes again? The doctor said that the shots would cure that forever and ever. ;)

At some point, Tiger Woods became
what we might call a public hero: no one forced that role on him and he made a lot of money and received a lot of positive feedback from having taken on that role. He blew it: he wasn’t capable of playing that role. Whether or not he was faithful to his wife matters little or nothing to me, but in general, it’s hard to respect people who take on roles, especially well-paid roles, that they are incapable of playing. Insofar as Mr. Woods became a public hero, he can no longer expect that the media respect his right to privacy: those are the rules of the game. As a sportman, Mr. Woods should understand that every game has its rules. Once again, the problem with Mr. Woods is not that he was unfaithful, but that he did not play the game, that of public hero, well.

Amos,
What does all this have to do with philosophy? With the issues raised?
Also you might want to think a bit more about whether the whole “public hero” role is “forced on”
people. What should woods have done?
“Hey America stop telling me I’m a great guy! Stop giving me lots of money ‘n stuff! Stop being nice to me! Stop having unrealistic explanations about what it means to be great at golf.

Mike,
No, I did. But does your doctor have anything for nominal … what’s the word?

And to SP1KEOK1LL3R and Amos,

We seem to be treating as one entity Tiger Woods’ roles as:
• someone who plays a game, albeit well.
• someone paid to play that game (and paid by a variety of sources).
• someone paid to sell (advertise, endorse) products or services.
• someone who might be paid by journalists for interviews, stories etc.
• someone written/broadcast about by journalists for their own purposes and without his consent.
• someone towards whom many of the public choose a particular relationship.
• someone who is an individual person with all the someones that entails (husband, father, sexual partner, whatever).

Surely, these are, at least partly or in their proportions, teaseable. Agreed that it’s rough on anyone who wishes just to play a game at the highest level they can that this means being a pro and a celebrity. On the other hand, in a today inhabited only by capitalist running dogs, can we remember that accepting money is a choice and people do sometimes refuse?

Karebaria: I agree that it is possible to separate roles, that every sports champion doesn’t necessarily have to endorse products or to make his family life a matter of public knowledge, as Mr. Woods apparently did (the commercial of him reading a story to his child).
Some sports champions are very zealous about keeping their private lives private. I know little about Woods and about golf in general, but apparently, Woods made every effort, with very lucrative rewards, to publicize all aspects of his life. I also agree with you that not everyone needs to commercialize every aspects of his or her existence, to convert moment into cash, especially when, as it the case with Mr. Woods, they already enjoy a income which is sufficient to assure all the luxuries of life.

errors: that should read “to convert every moment into cash”

that also should read “as is the case with Mr.Woods”

Two of the Gilette 3 have been caught cheating now, Andre Agassi be very afraid. Henri’s exculpators offer the rationalisation that it is the referee’s job to catch fouls and the professional player whose only aim is to win will try to get away with as much as he can. Is that sporting old chap? I hereby sentence him to read Henry Newbolt’s poem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Newbolt
This is the real moral issue for me with sports - cheating in the game.

Woods’ fault is no business of mine, I shave with a Victorian straight razor.

We seem to be drifting pretty far from the subject of philosphy here. Where would such a “right” come from? As Alan Dershowitz has noted, there are no such things as “natural rights.” Rights are invented by civilized humans in order to prevent “wrongs.” They are simply rules to help us live in a civilized way. So, the reference to J.S. Mill seems appropriate, but this topic isn’t clear to me philosophically. The only “right to know” would have to stem from a law wouldn’t it?

While I don’t feel particularly sorry for Mr. Woods in the midst of all this fallout (as it is largely of his own making…), and while I agree that he probably did give up any expectation of being extended a right to privacy long ago due to the ways in which he’s traded on his public image and benefited from it, it still doesn’t follow that we curious members of the public do well in exercising our supposed “right to know,” even if we have that right. I may have the right to do all kinds of things that aren’t helpful or healthy, for me or for others. In other words, I doubt whether the language of “rights” is even relevant here, considering that we are mostly talking about snapping up lurid tabloid articles. The appropriate ethical category, to my mind, is not rights, but one having to do with restraint versus mindless action. And that shifts the debate from one about Woods to one about us individually, who demand information and thus perpetuate media circuses like this. It’s better that we be honest about our (probably not very worthy) personal motivations for wanting to know about this stuff to begin with.

Alex,

There is also a strong natural rights tradition that can be drawn from. Of course, arguing that there is a natural right to know would take some doing. I decided to take an easier path and just steal from Mill.

It is also possible to cash out rights in ethical terms without using an appeal to actual rights. That is, that it would be right to do X and wrong to prevent people from doing X can be presented as a form of rights talk.

Sp1ke,

You raise good points. I would agree that the right to know would not necessarily grant a right to snoop. Snooping would seem to be getting into business that one has no business being in or perhaps it could also be seen as the mode of inquiry. It seems reasonable to expect that people would exercise any right to know in a way that is also morally acceptable. So, as you say, people could put Woods to the test without digging into the details of his private life in snoopy ways.

My point about it being limited is that there seem to be matters that people have a right to know even when the thing in question is not a potential or actual harm to them. Of course, “harm” can be defined rather broadly to catch a great deal of stuff. Perhaps it would be better to talk about reasonable expectations in regards to such matters. For example, if Ted is dating Sally then he would have the right to know whether she harbored any STDs. However, he would not have a right to know about the details of her past relations. He would, however, have a reasonable expectation to know things about her personally (such as her favorite foods, her likes/dislike in the arts, whether she has siblings or not, and so on). Of course, she would also have the right to refuse to divulge such information since Ted really has no right to know (unless ignorance could harm him).

[...] The Philosopher’s Magazine, Mike LaBossiere is following a story that is preoccupying slightly less philosophical magazines nowadays: The recent media [...]

We seem to be treating as one entity Tiger Woods’ roles…”
You must be talking to Amos here because I have not done so.
But what exactly is your point?
Just to assert that such roles are separable? And how is that philosophically significant? Would my conclusions be any different? Should they be?
“On the other hand, in a today inhabited only by capitalist running dogs, can we remember that accepting money is a choice and people do sometimes refuse?”

What does that mean? capitalist running dogs? As opposed to what? Marxist gnawing Mice? Flatulent Fascists? What place does that have in a discussion of philosophy?
Yes accepting money is a choice,some people refuse, and………….? What’s your point? How does it relate to a purported right to know?

“Perhaps it would be better to talk about reasonable expectations in regards to such matters. For example, if Ted is dating Sally then he would have the right to know whether she harbored any STDs.”

Doesn’t this fall under the harm principal already mentioned?

How would reasonable expectations
factor into the woods case?

“The right to know” I think is much more in line with Mills than any other points raised here in this blog. I am inclined to believe that I have “the right to know” only if I am affected. I only need to know as much as necessary to live a content, and relatively informed life. That doesn’t mean that I can’t know or desire to know more, but that’s as far as my “rights” extend.
If Tigers cheating personally affected my life experience in any way other than just changing my opinion of his character, then I would have rights. Because he’s rich and made money from his job, doesn’t give me more right to know his business than he has in mine. Tigers life is in no way affected by me cheating & vice versa. By proxy of his fame I’ll likely know about his affairs more readily then he would mine, but that is not indicative of any given rights.
What’s the craziest thing of all to me, is not that we are talking about “the right to know” but rather when we choose to debate this right. This conversation would have been more appropriate in questioning George W. And the war efforts! Tiger Woods infidelity sparks more debate on this right than does the presidents motives and his service records…poor Dan Rathers. That affected my families lives immensely yet I know no more today as to why as I did the day we declared war. As a veteran now I have a right to know that info more so than with whom Tigers been sleeping. Just one mans opinion.

Can the (moral?) duty of washing one’s feet become yet another matter for philosophizing?

Anything can become the subject of philosophizing and anyone can have a go at it. Some are just better at it than others.

I do think the language of rights is appropriate in this sort of extra-legal context. (In that way, I might be disagreeing with Luke.) For it seems to me that it is entirely proper for us to speak of commonlaw rights, or the spirit of rights, or whatever allows us to preserve that language outside of mere government affairs. Largely, this owes to the fact that I don’t see any legitimate formal distinction between legal systems from other powerful macro-level social systems.

It seems to me that it is entirely correct for us to glom onto social roles for the purposes of talking about the right to know, and everyone here has done right by chasing that intuition. But it does not seem to me that we are in the right condition if we use Mike’s account to get us there. The Facebook analogy is significant here: where Mike talks about giving away one’s right to privacy, I would talk about increasing the sphere of privilege. When you encourage people to trust you, you cannot be appropriately said to have signed your life away to Big Brother. Instead, you have to occupy some definite role which is connected to types of harms: the President, the CEO of a bank, etc. Being a friggin golfer? Notsomuch.

Might he be a “role model”, nevertheless (as Karebaria anticipated early on)? And if so, is that connected with other people having a right to know? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t really seem obvious to me what the answer is.

But whatever the answer turns out to be, I think it has to take Luke’s point about circuses into account. We are in a culture that is addicted to its own bullshit. People have a gross sense of entitlement to privileges that they have no right to.

Sp1ke,
So many questions; my apologies for irritating you. Let me try to better explain myself.

My point about roles is something like this. Debate seemed to be describing TW in terms of clusters of attributes without specifying which, if any, might tip the balance between TW’s presumed right to privacy and any public supposed right to know. You offered “What should Woods have done? Hey America stop telling me I’m a great guy! Stop giving me lots of money’n stuff! Stop being nice to me! Stop having unrealistic explanations [expectations?] about what it means to play golf.”

Thus you speak of TW as public hero, as someone who takes money from golf, from advertisers, as popular celebrity. I think it might be argued that only in some of these roles can TW be seen as taking actions or making choices relevant to the case. [For myself I can only see relevance in some implied contract with a public undertaken by TW in advertising some products in certain ways, and then I’m not convinced.] Rhetorically, closing with a popular sentiment (a no-brainer?) has the effect of slipping by us other arguments or assumptions in the same wrapper.

As to whether my point would change your mind, what it has to do with philosophy? I doubt that it would alter your conclusion. I did think though that in philosophy the candidate is expected to show his or her working.

And then there’s the capitalist running dogs. The secret of comedy is timing and being upwards of twenty years late is pretty abject. I would write out a hundred times “Levity has no place in philosophy” but cut’n’paste renders that an empty penance.

Sp1ke,
So many questions; my apologies for irritating you. Let me try to better explain myself.

My point about roles is something like this. Debate seemed to be describing TW in terms of clusters of attributes without specifying which, if any, might tip the balance between TW’s presumed right to privacy and any public supposed right to know. You offered “What should Woods have done? Hey America stop telling me I’m a great guy! Stop giving me lots of money’n stuff! Stop being nice to me! Stop having unrealistic explanations [expectations?] about what it means to play golf.”

Thus you speak of TW as public hero, as someone who takes money from golf, from advertisers, as popular celebrity. I think it might be argued that only in some of these roles can TW be seen as taking actions or making choices relevant to the case. [For myself I can only see any relevance in some implied contract with a public undertaken by TW in advertising some products in certain ways, and then I’m not convinced.] Rhetorically, closing with a popular sentiment has the effect of slipping by us other arguments or assumptions in the same wrapper.

As to whether my point would change your mind, what it has to do with philosophy? I doubt that it would alter your conclusion. I did think though that in philosophy the candidate is expected to show the working.

And then there’s the capitalist running dogs. The secret of comedy is timing and being upwards of twenty years late is pretty abject. I would write out a hundred times “Levity has no place in philosophy” but cut’n’paste renders that an empty penance

Don,

You’re right,of course. But why do I wonder if everyone else feels, as I, vaguely assigned to the latter group?

[...] } Mike Laboissiere at Talkingphilosophy brings up an interesting issue about the right to know about what goes on in the private lives of celebrities. The recent media [...]

KB

“Debate seemed to be describing TW in terms of clusters of attributes without specifying which, if any, might tip the balance between TW’s presumed right to privacy and any public supposed right to know.”
The principal of harm, we discussed is more than sufficient to decide that question, but this can definitely be a matter for the rapier of one Bill of Occam;
You do seem to require another principal to resolve the question. I just don’t see its necessity. Can you show a case where harm does not “tip the balance between TW’s presumed right to privacy and any public supposed right to know.” Can you remove the flesh without shedding one drop of Occamian blood?
“Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut’st more Or less than a just pound, be it but so much As makes it light or heavy in the substance, Or the division of the twentieth part Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn But in the estimation of a hair Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.”
Now that’s levity!

===================================
So many facts yet so few to get straight:
“You offered “What should Woods have done? Hey America stop telling me I’m a great guy! Stop giving me lots of money’n stuff! Stop being nice to me! Stop having unrealistic explanations [expectations?] about what it means to play golf.”

The offer was never made, at least not as an answer to the question
of balancing privacy and a purported right to know.
=================================
“I think it might be argued that only in some of these roles can TW be seen as taking actions or making choices relevant to the case.”
And those are? And what makes those
actions and choices relavant while others are not?
==================================
“[For myself I can only see any relevance in some implied contract with a public undertaken by TW in advertising some products in certain ways, and then I’m not convinced.]”
Why not? You seem to be very good at saying nothing in particular. Are you a lawyer? (more actual levity)
================================
“Rhetorically, closing with a popular sentiment has the effect of slipping by us other arguments or assumptions in the same wrapper.”
Which is it? a poor attempt at levity or an attempt to slip “by us other arguments or assumptions in the same wrapper”?
=============================
“As to whether my point would change your mind, what it has to do with philosophy? I doubt that it would alter your conclusion.”

Once again whether you could change my mind is not at issue, but only “Would my conclusions be any different? Should they be?”
(emphasis on should they be)
once “the clusters of attributes” are “partly or in their proportions” teased out?
=============================
“I would write out a hundred times “Levity has no place in philosophy” but cut’n’paste renders that an empty penance”

Ah so true, which is why we’ll accept a pummeling with
Das Capital

Enjoyable blog.
I do not believe the question is do you have a right to know. If it is a fact, do you not have a right to know it? Do you not have a “right” to know all things? Morality and moral interpretations are based on actions taken to acquire knowledge and the use of knowledge.

Morality and moral interpretations are based on actions taken to acquire knowledge and the use of knowledge.

And how dose murder for a pair of sneakers fit here?

And no you don’t have a right to know anything. There are exceptions; however, If I told you I’d have to kill you in order for your priciple to be true: That is to prevent you from using the knowledge once you aquired it.

Largly I simply agree w amos.

But besides volentarily taking on t role of public hero Mr. Woods is a public figure and our courts have ruled that t rules involving public figures work differently than for t rest of us. In and of itself, I don’t think there is a lot of ethical justification for this position. I think it goes more like this position is justified by a publics right to know about pulic figures.

I understand that there are specific rules defining who is considered a “public figure” that exclude family members of “public figures” for instence. Other than that, I admit to ignorence as to who qualifies as a “public figure”. Needless to say tho, Mr. Woods is one.

Another small point here. Obviosly a good percentage of all t people who say they are not influenced by celebrities are wrong.

One, add agenies wouldnot spend millions on getting celebrity endorsments if there was not some evidence that it is succesful.

And two, I believe that studies and statistics back this up directly to an extent anyway. For instence, I remember some brand of beer having their sales go way up just after a new add campagn involving sports celebrities; retired sports celebrities at that, as I remember.

RE: Babrock

“I think it goes more like this position is justified by a public’s right to know about public figures. ”

This appears a bit circular. This thread exists as an effort to examine why or if the public has a right to know about public figures.

“Obviosly a good percentage of all t people who say they are not influenced by celebrities are wrong.”
You may want to reconsider your claim here: you have group A.)people who say they are not influenced by celebrities.
And group
B.)a good percentage of group A.

The problem is that group A is a percentage of a much larger group
points 1 and two you provide may apply to 95% of a given population
leaving 5% in group A. Beer manufacturers et al may increase sales because 95% of the population IS influenced by celebrities. I’m just not sure why that says anything about people who say they are not influenced by celebrities. Can you explain?

It’s not so much a question of “do you have a right to know?”as it is of “do you have an interest in knowing?”

While it is not true of everyone, most people would choose the answer to the question based on their own personal interest in the information.

The question of right or wrong only enters into their mind after they’ve decide whether or not they have an interest in knowing about the private lives of public figures.

It’s only after you’ve come to your conclusion that you try to justify your stance on the matter.

Well I notice that nobody has these discussions when the media is calling any female celebrity a whore, or otherwise denigrating her merely for being Female While Famous.

All I notice is that most people are trying really hard to give Tiger Woods a free pass from this usual amount of scrutiny because he’s male.

M Andrea:

Where to begin? What female celebrity are you talking about? Can you show an example of one being referred to as a whore or otherwise denigrating her merely for being Female While Famous?
On the face of it your accusations sound absurd. How about some evidence. Personally I do not pay any attention to the gossip columns and magazines. Guess you’re one up one me.
But that of course may be part of your problem. Do you really expect gossip to be fair, balanced, kind?
Again lets get back to specifics.
Mike LaBossiere’s article. A clever way to get people talking about a philosophical issue. After all, if they are already talking, why not drive the conversation in a philosophical direction.
Where does he give Mr. Woods a pass?
The majority of responders here have not spoken in Woods favor.
I may be the only one here giving
“Tiger Woods a free pass from this usual amount of scrutiny” but then “scrutiny” is something I pretty much detest whether it’s of myself or others.
If Mr. Woods tried to kill the president, I might agree to a certain amount of public scrutiny, but his actions (Which society has determined that I need to know despite my preferences) have no impact on me, didn’t make me lose any sleep or cost me anything.
I guess scrutinizing others is a way for most folks to e entertained. It’s certainly a lot easier to moralize about others than to deal with one’s own
failings.
Anyway, M Andrea, it sounds like you have some personal anger to deal with.

To (hopefully) add to the discussion, which I am very late in joining, the whole concept seems to boil down to only a couple of germane points.

Woods, through his fame as a golfer, is involved in many “appeal to authority” arguments (endorsements) . Whether those be sporting goods, cars, razor blades, banking services or whatever, they are still fallacious appeals to authority and should be generally recognized as such. Thus there are two questions:

1. Do Woods’ marital problems and infidelities have any effect on his ability as a golfer?
2. Do Woods’ marital problems and infidelities change fallacious arguments into true ones?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is “yes”, then there might be a right to know somewhere. If the answer to either or both of those questions is “no”, then there isn’t.

To pull the spotlight off of Woods and onto the media, there is a related question. If the media has been portraying Woods as a squeaky clean, all-American kinda guy, do they owe a duty to correct that portrayal if it turns out to be false? I would maintain that they do. However, that is not how the matter was handled.

But what is done is done. The only remaining question is whether I will once again have to switch radio stations to get away from the morning show folks who seem to have taken great delight in chronicling the whole thing (again and again and again and…).

Marcus

Your questions presuppose the very knowledge you are deciding on whether or not you should know it. Seems a bit like asking if you should let the horses out of
the barn as they gallop toward the woods( pun unintended)
You assert
“Woods, through his fame as a golfer, is involved in many “appeal to authority” arguments (endorsements) . Whether those be sporting goods, cars, razor blades, banking services or whatever, they are still fallacious appeals to authority and should be generally recognized as such.”
If these are indeed as Woods claims, I don’t see the fallacy.
Unless of course you mean to challenge whether he is an authority
on those products, but then the question becomes whether he was,
in fact, represented as such an authority. I think it is more an appeal to celebrity than authority. That is people want to be close to him or be important like him and they feel they accomplish this by doing as he does.

I would also say it’s a fallacy to call these endorsements an “appeal to authority”. While I don’t think most people consider TW to be an “authority” on razor blades and cars (sporting goods and banking services being another issue), I do think most people look at him as a person with analytical skills that they either use as a substitue for their own or aspire to emulate. When his ability to think and analyze clearly outside of golf was exposed as being questionable, people reassess their perspectives and are looking for more information in order to rationalize their perceptions, vis-a-vis TW or anything/anyone else.

“If the answer to either or both of those questions is “yes”, then there might be a right to know somewhere. If the answer to either or both of those questions is “no”, then there isn’t.”

OK, so if “yes” to one and “no” to the other, what’s your point? I would be very surprised if his recent problems didn’t have any effect on his golf game. And this could affect him either way. IIRC, when Boston Red Sox 3B Wade Boggs had infidelity issues, his hitting improved. Sometimes people focus more on matters at hand when the rest of their life is in chaos…sometimes not.

As for fallacious arguments in general, what has your questionable choice in radio stations have to do with what anyone else feels the need to know?