Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.

In this reply to Paul Gaffney, I raise questions about his strong emphasis on winning as the foundation of athletic virtues such as teamwork. I connect this to his reading of Aristotle on the connection of virtue and happiness, and suggest an alternative reading that I believe is more true to Aristotle and to the experience of sport.

Teamwork in sport presents a variety of special challenges and satisfactions. It requires an integration of talents and contributions from individual team members, which is a practical achievement, and it represents a shared pursuit, which is a moral achievement. In its best instances team sport allows members to transform individual interests into a common interest, and in the process discover of part of their own identities. Teamwork is made intelligible by the collective pursuit of victory, but moral requirements importantly condition (...) that activity. To some extent, the dynamic of team sport instantiates a basic experience of human sociality. (shrink)

Teamwork in sport presents a variety of special challenges and satisfactions. It requires an integration of talents and contributions from individual team members, which is a practical achievement, and it represents a shared pursuit, which is a moral achievement. In its best instances team sport allows members to transform individual interests into a common interest, and in the process discover of part of their own identities. Teamwork is made intelligible by the collective pursuit of victory, but moral requirements importantly condition (...) that activity. To some extent, the dynamic of team sport instantiates a basic experience of human sociality. (shrink)

Paul Gaffney has provided an excellent exploration of teamwork in athletic contexts, a topic that in spite of its prominence and relevance in the sporting world has been relatively neglected in the philosophy of sport literature. In this paper, I present and discuss three areas of Gaffney’s exploration of teamwork relevant to organized youth sport that might help stimulate reflection on the most auspicious conditions and responsible methodologies for young athletes to become themselves through organized sport.

In the first part of this paper, I argue that philosophers of sport have mistakenly privileged a specific psychology and purpose in their definitions of competition. The result of this mistake has been that philosophers of sport make generalisations about competition as such which in fact only hold for some competitions. In the second and third parts of the paper, I articulate an alternative approach: rather than search for a single psychology and purpose that underlies all competition, I argue that (...) we should begin by acknowledging four distinctly different competitive formats, and only then enquire as to which psychologies and purposes are more or less appropriate to each format. This method allows us to capture the richness and diversity of competition, and helps to ensure that we do not confuse part and whole when defining it. (shrink)

This paper seeks to provide a response to Gaffney's analysis of teamwork by arguing that teamwork is morally neutral rather than a virtue in itself. This conclusion will be supported by examples which demonstrate how teamwork can develop and foster undesirable traits and practices such as resentment, contempt and the purely instrumental use of others in the achievement of desired ends.

One often chooses to work collaboratively. Given that there is a cost in effort of doing so, it suggests that there also has to be some real advantage in teamwork. The idea that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts is applied to teams in terms of the non-linear composition of causes. One can thus do things together that one could not do alone or one can do them better. This supports Gaffney’s communitarian approach thereby explaining (...) how the individual can be at their best when part of a collective and indeed how a collective endeavor can be the making of the individual self. (shrink)

In this response to Paul Gaffney’s “The Nature and Meaning of Teamwork,” I draw on recent work in analytic social philosophy to provide a more robust vocabulary for understanding teamwork as a distinctly social fact. I argue that teamwork entails complex reflexive social cooperation aimed at achieving shared excellence within constraints of various kinds.

In this essay I endorse Gaffney’s paradoxical analysis that supports the right over the good, ‘horizontal commitments’ to teammates over ‘vertical loyalties’ to the cause of winning. However, I attempt to present two friendly amendments—by adding a second factor to the vertical element and by showing that a virtue ethics approach is needed in certain situations. I conclude that Gaffney’s deontological stance serves him well in the Hope Solo case, but might not be as effective in other circumstances.