فهرست نشریات علمی دسترسی آزاد ایران

In the realm of sports, a significant discourse revolves around the conflict between sportsmanship and the interests resulting from victory. This article evaluates the behavior of Pedro Zaballa in refraining from scoring a goal due to a collision with a rival in a football match. To assess the righteousness or wrongfulness of Pedro Zaballa's sportsmanlike behavior in disregarding the team's interests, we need for an evaluative criterion. Various moral theories, including those grounded in self-interest and utilitarianism, have been scrutinized for their applicability in assessing acts of kindness. Nonetheless, a definitive solution, devoid of inherent flaws in delineating ethical obligations, remains elusive. By engaging the perspectives of Muslim scholars, juxtaposed with arguments from both proponents and detractors of Zaballa's behavior, the principles of jurisprudential conflict resolution based on priorities and the identification of the most important obligation determine the duty of the moral agent. The rule of precedence of the more important over the important and the rule of priority of repelling harm over attracting benefit are the ways to identify the most important obligation and moral duty. Based on this, the professional duties and team interests are crucial, and consequently, Zaballa's ethical duty is to score a goal, which also averts harm. Failure to score a goal, due to ethical values of benevolence and ethical action, is not a moral obligation; it is akin to pardoning a murderer by the victim's family. Therefore, it cannot be recommended to others in similar situations.