Good morning. Scotland awoke yesterday a broken-hearted and bewildered nation. On Sunday afternoon in the rugby world cup quarter-final the national team, who weren’t given a cat’s chance by anybody, were leading the mighty Australia with a minute to go. A borderline penalty was given against them, which wasn’t referred to the television referee for a second opinion, and they lost by a single point.
In every sport-addicted sitting room there’s the same conversation. ‘The game’s over. Why’re you still watching?’ The answer is, the chat. The after-game is half
the fun. The chat often settles on blaming the referee. One pundit says, ‘What we’re looking for is consistency. Last week the ref didn’t give a penalty; this time
he did. We just need the same rules for everybody.’ The other pundit says, ‘Yes, what we need is common sense. Why follow the letter of the law? You should let the
game flow and not blow the whistle all the time.’
What the pundits seldom realise is that they’re expressing the two rival schools of ethics. One school is about right and wrong, about things being good or bad,
regardless of circumstances. The other school is about outcomes – setting aside anxiety about right and wrong, and instead evaluating which course of action is likely
to produce the most positive consequences.
What rugby, like many walks of life, is trying to do is introduce technology to ensure mistakes don’t happen. So everyone on Sunday quickly agreed that the ref should
have employed the technology to turn a borderline decision into a conclusive one. But it turns out the regulations state the technology is only to be used in the case
of try-scoring or foul play. So to find the truth the referee would have had to bend the rules.
A minute later, at the end of the game, the referee bolted off the field – as if in panic at what he’d done. However much ethicists deliberate and pundits pronounce,
we’re still fallible. Those who stayed watching for the after-game chat on Sunday were rewarded with the extraordinary dignity of the Scots’ coach and captain
expressing sadness without blame.
Jesus was especially close to two of his followers: John seems to have had a special place in his heart. Meanwhile Peter was passionate but unreliable. Jesus chose to
found the church on Peter – the one who made terrible mistakes, yet allowed those mistakes to be exposed and forgiven.
No system of ethics, no code of rules will stop us getting things wrong. No sophisticated technology can ultimately prevent us suffering the consequences of other
people getting things wrong where we’re involved. Life isn’t about not making mistakes: it’s about what we do when we’ve made them.