I am a 60-year-old competitive distance runner who likes to win. Typically, races group runners by age and sex to balance competition. But senior runners often outperform younger runners. This is not as strange as it sounds: Seniors generally have more time to train than younger runners. Because I often stand a better chance of beating younger athletes, I am tempted to enter myself in a younger age group. I figure the natural competitive advantage bestowed by youth compensates for any misrepresentation on my part. Would it be unethical to slide back into a younger age group? I do like to win. DAN DEVLIN, SILVER SPRING, MD.
You keep mentioning that you “like to win.” That’s irrelevant. Most people who enter competitions like to win. But most don’t cheat in order to do so.
I realize your method of cheating is irregular (and feels somehow less troubling because of your age). I would have assumed a 60-year-old man running against 50-year-old rivals would be at a competitive disadvantage. But you clearly state otherwise. You stand a better chance of winning against people in a seemingly higher competitive class than your own. The motive is what matters here. If you had asked if it was O.K. to run with a younger tier of people in order to be pushed harder, that would be different; you would be misrepresenting your age in order to get the best out of yourself. But this is not the case. You are opting out of your age group because the competition is too demanding, which is no different from an 18-year-old claiming to be 30.
DEVILISH ADVOCATE
Recently, I needed critical legal advice to save a friend’s life. I was able to get the information, along with a generous offer to provide legal help, from a nonprofit organization. I am incredibly grateful for this advice, which indeed may have saved my friend’s life. But I believe that this organization causes harm to individuals and to society as a whole. In fact, I have vocally opposed them for decades. Was I wrong to seek help from them? NAME WITHHELD, NEW YORK
Why do people so often believe that being uncompromising about their ideological views somehow makes them more ethical?
You needed help. The organization was in a position to help you. The exchange was not dependent on your suddenly agreeing to adopt its views or support its larger mission. I can understand how you might feel hypocritical accepting assistance from a group you’ve spent decades opposing, but maybe that just means your opposition was a little shortsighted. Maybe in the future, you need to consider such organizations with more balance. Or perhaps this changes nothing about how you feel about this institution; perhaps you see this instance as an anomaly that has no impact on how you view anything else. That is also acceptable. But the point is that ethical living is not dependent on accepting help from — or providing it to — only those whose ethics mirror your own. Unswerving inflexibility is not proof of morality.