Using a Wood to drive morality discussions

Tiger Woods’ admitted ‘indiscretions’ have tee’d off more than a few people recently, including his wife, Elin, his corporate sponsors, and bigwigs in the golfing world.

Sponsors Accenture, Gillette, Tag Heuer and AT&T are publicly distancing themselves from sports’ first billionaire and no doubt ruing the fact that their names are likely to be associated with the scandal for years to come. (Perhaps the so-called ‘Curse of Gillette’ works both ways?)

Woods’ family and his sponsors have a right to feel aggrieved, and seriously let down, by his actions. It’s a breach of trust on a spectacular scale.

I find it interesting, though that there’s a growing moral backlash amongst many without little or no association with Woods whatsoever.

The perception that he had a ‘picture-perfect’ lifestyle was just that – a perception.

Authors and commentators condemning his behaviour in their tweets, blog posts, newspaper articles, talkback shows and so on seem to be focusing on how he has let himself, and others down, including his fans and the public at large.

This may be true, but did Woods ever set out to be a poster-boy for marriage and fatherhood? I’m not sure he did.

For those of us not directly associated or involved with Woods, stepping back and objectively thinking about how we feel about his behaviour gives us an opportunity to examine our own values, morals and beliefs. It also gives us an opportunity to consider how we are perceived by others and whether we’re happy with that perception?

Dictionary.com defines ‘morality’ as ‘virtuous conduct’ and ‘being in accord with standards of right or good conduct’. The difficulty is – against whose standards are we being measured?