As the Rio Summer Olympics approach, the subject of sport, excellence, and cheating returns to the fore. Â With it comes discussion of what cheating in sport is and why it is bad, or not.
A recent post in FastCompany makes an argument that , e.g., sport.  All these activities are governed by rules but, since the rules of sport are arbitrary, cheating on them is merely a formal issue.  In politics or business, however, the rules are there to promote human thriving or flourishing, so violating them is more fundamentally wrong.
I think that this argument is somewhat flawed.  To explain, consider the concept of a game given by Bernie Suits (a former professor of Philosophy here at UÀ¶Ý®ÊÓƵ):
To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude].
For example, the 100m dash aims to achieve the crossing of the finish line ahead of the other competitors [prelusory goal] using only a launch from starting blocks and running down a 100m lane in a track [lusory means], where the rules prohibit the use of more efficient means, e.g., a motorcycle, [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted because they make a sprinting sport possible [lusory attitude].
Suits' account supports the view that the rules of a game (or sport) are arbitrary—that is, they are just whatever people agree that they are.
I have to differ on this point. Â Ideally, sports exist for the development and display of human excellence, including individual fitness and pro-social behavior. Â The 100m dash is a good example and one of the most ancient sport types around. Â Running fast has always been an important skill for people to have. Â People who do it well are admirable, at least to that extent. Â
Team sports exhibit the pro-social aspect of sport more clearly. Â A volleyball team, for example, must communicate and cooperate well in order to compete. Â Those skills are also important to the proper functioning of any society, e.g., in business and politics.
We can imagine having an Olympic coin flipping event. Â However, flipping a coin does not exhibit human fitness nor does it feature pro-social skills.
So, I differ with the argument that cheating in business and politics differs from cheating in sport in the sense that the former are not "just a game" unlike the latter. Ideally, all involve the pursuit of human excellence. Â Their differences lie elsewhere.
As the Olympics progress, we will no doubt have further occasion to consider the broader significance of sport and cheating in sport.