Talent and moral character have no formal connection at all. The most talented of individuals can be morally horrendous individuals. By contrast, those who are quite bereft of talent can be quite morally upright. And it is this truth, more than any other that the Tiger Woods scandal makes unequivocally clear. His talent as a golfer is beyond question. Likewise, Hitler’s talent as an orator was beyond question. This raises a very interesting question, namely following. Should we honor people for their talent if they are known to have an unquestionably ignoble character?
Interestingly, there are two ways in which we honor people for their talent. On the one hand, there is what I call the “formal scores” criterion. By the “formal scores” criterion anyone who scores a certain amount of points or breaks the record for scoring is honored by, for instance, being inductive into the “Hall of Fame” or whatever. So we could all agree that Opidopo is a schmuck bet yet is the greatest homerun batter or that Jamilla is likewise a schmuck but the greatest female long distance runner ever.
With the “formal score” criteria, character is formally irrelevant. No one is a better or worse. Jamilla has not broken the record for female long distance running any less just because she is a moral scumbag. Likewise for Opidopo with breaking the batting record.
The Guinness Book of Records is probably the ultimate keeper of successes that satisfy none other than the “formal scores” criterion. It is all about whoever ate the most or stood the longest or whatever.
The contrast with the “formal scores” criterion is the “substantive contribution” criterion. It is possible for the “formal scores” criterion and the “substantive contribution” criterion to overlap. For example, suppose that a most successful runner had been a Polio victim; and through hard work and dent of will she or he overcame that illness and set a new record for running. Setting the new record is, of course, quite impressive. No less impressive, however, is overcoming the ravages of Polio.
The Congressional Gold Medal falls in the “substantive contribution” category. And recently Representative Joe Baca has decided to abandon his efforts to have this honor bestowed upon Tiger Woods. Some have expressed their objection to Baca’s change of mind on the grounds that the personal mess that Woods has gotten himself into does not change one iota the fact that he remains one of the best golfers in the world—if not, in fact, the best.
Alas, the objection is without merit. The Congressional Gold Medal is not an honor based upon satisfying a formal criterion. It is not even an honor for golfing. It is quintessentially an honor that is tied to the fact the recipient has made an indisputable substantive contribution. Wikipedia has a list of individuals whom have been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Needless to say, it is quite an impressive list. The baseball player Jackie Robinson is among the recipients of the honor. Significantly, the reason why Robinson was bestowed the honor points to why Representative Joe Baca is right in no longer pursing the goal of having the honor bestowed upon Woods.
The honor was bestowed upon Robinson because, as a black, he persevered in baseball when blacks were not accepted in the sports. That is to say, a most crucial factor is that Robinson had displayed a most admirable strength of character. The success of Tiger Woods in golf is not tied to an analogous strength of character. Billy Graham and Father Theodore Hesburgh are also among the honorees. Needless to say, Woods has no chance whatsoever of being in the same moral league as these last two individuals.
Interestingly, the legendary golfer Arnold Palmer is among the honorees of the Congressional Gold Medal. There is every indication, however, that he was a man of decent moral character, as there are no scandals associated with his name. Palmer is also a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. As of yet, I do not see Woods is listed as one of its members. Just so, I can make perfectly good sense of Woods being inducted to the World Golf Hall of Fame tomorrow. For as they say, Woods has not committed any crime; and I assume that the World Golf Hall of Fame is not limited to saints.
The Congressional Gold Medal, however, is another matter entirely. For that medal is surely tied to a striking excellence in character. And to endure in the face of considerable adversity is surely an example of a striking excellence in character.
Woods’ talents as a golfer are entirely beyond dispute. Painfully, what is also entirely beyond dispute is that he has a most ignoble aspect to this character. This indisputable latter truth roundly disqualifies him for the Congressional Medal of Honor.
The distinction between the “formal scores” and the “substantive contribution” is of the utmost importance. There is a perfectly good sense in which both types of honors have their place in the world, which is no doubt why the Guinness Book of Records exists. It suffices to point out, though, that it is not to the Guinness Book of Records that we turn for inspiration and exemplars of excellence.
So, when we turn to the list of Congressional Medal Honorees, it should be an extremely rare instance when all that we can see about a given honoree is that she or he has scored more than any other person playing a particular sport. And that instance should be a mistake. In the case of Tiger Woods, there can be no rational at all for making even that mistake.
So if there is any good to come out of the Tiger Woods fiasco it is the simple lesson that in honoring a person the distinction between “formal scores” and “substantive contribution” is an extremely important one.
