In the last Ind- Aus ODI, which took place in the Wankhade Stadium, Mumbai, India was saved the blushes by two of its front line bowlers, but not with the ball- with the bat. Murali Karthik and Zaheer khan put together a gutsy partnership of 51 runs to take India home. In the post match ceremony, Karthik admitted that in the course of his innings, he had nicked a delivery to the keeper and as it went undetected, he did'nt bother bringing it up himself. When his turn came to speak, Australian captain Ricky Ponting suggested that it would have been nice if Karthik had walked. For the cricket ignorant, 'Walking' is the term used when the batsman knows he is out and does not wait for the umpire's signal to go back to the dressing room. This is seen as a show of sportsman spirit and upholding of ethics in the game. But as we know, talking about ethics is travelling on a very slippery slope. So get ready to slide..
There are 4 major perspectives on what is Ethical: Rationalism, Egoism, Utilitarianism and Deontology.
Rationalism says that end justifies means. i.e. even if you do something wrong to achieve a good purpose, it is justified. This might be the principle Robin Hood lives by. Steal from the rich to feed the poor. Even in Mahabharatha we can see an illustration of this perspective. When Krishna asks Yudhisthira to lie to Drona that Aswathama has died, he says that telling a lie to achieve a greater good is not a sin. So this view point has been in force for quite a long time.
Egoism says that whatever done for the benefit of one's own is justified. You can lie, cheat or steal as long as you are benefitted. Sounds like something our politicians would just adore.
Utilitarianism says that if you do something that benefits a majority, that is ethical. For eg, say you do something which benefits X no. of people and harms Y no. of people. If X>Y, then according to Utilitarianism, what you did is ethical. People like Terrorists are usually judged by this principle. They crash a plane into the twin towers and Al Qaida is benefited but the people in US are harmed. Since the population of US >>people in Al Qaida, it is deemed tha Al Qaida did a wrong thing. In the same way, US bombs Afghanistan in retaliation. Again, some people are benefited and some harmed. In this case as the latter is lesser, US stands justified in its actions (atleast according to Utilitarianstic theory)
And finally, Deontology. This is somewhat the other side of Rationalism. Where rationalism says that Ends justify means, Deontology says that means is also as important. i.e. stealing from the rich to give to the poor does not make you any lesser a thief. This is the theory which governs most of the law and order in our society. This society does not look kindly to an orphan who steals bread for his hungry sister. He is also as guilty as a hustler who makes millions cheating the public.
So now lets see if Karthik was justified in not walking.
Rationalism: Ends justifies means. In the end India won. That should be justification enough for Karthik's not walking. If he had walked, there was no guarantee that the last pair would survive long enough to take India to the shores of victory. So in this context, Karthik's actions are justified.
Egoism: Do what benefits you. While bowling, Karthik had put up a record breaking performance of 6 for 27. It was quite obvious that he did'nt want to see his bowling efforts go to waste. Who can blame him? Here too his actions stands justified.
Utilitarianism: Do what benefits the majority. Another defeat at the hands of australians would have plunged millions of Indian cricket fans into a state of depression. The reaction of the Mumbai crowds after victory was sign enough that they didnt remember that we lost the series. They just remembered the day and on that day, India won. Seeing how the population of Australia is not even a distant competition to that of India, what Karthik did benefited the majority. So here too he stands justified.
Now here comes the twist.
Deontology: Not just results, Actions too matter: If you have to win a game, win it fairly without any external help. When he knew he was out and still stayed at the crease, Karthik was cheating. He didnt play fair and whatever the results, his actions were wrong. Or so says deontological ethics. So here he does not stand justified.
In any democratic society, usually when 3 out of 4 people have one view on a topic and the last person differs, the majority view is upheld. I am not judging or anything. But if 3 mad guys call you mad, who is really mad? Is it you because they are the majority or are they in spite of being the majority?
