Review Questions II Flashcards
Who wrote about doping in sport and what was their view?
Tamburrini appeared to be in favour of allowing doping in sport because:
- Anti-paternalism: athletes can make own choices
- Unfairness occurs in sport, not everyone can win
- Coercion by sporting bodies who force athletes to follow anti doping rules
- From utilitarian POV (JS Mill) controlling athletes decisions may reduce overall happiness
Who brought up virtue ethics in doping and what were their view?
Hwang and Kretchmar
- Doping may provide unfair advantage
- Harm/Health of athlete
- They took the virtue ethics approach and came to the conclusion that athletes can self regulate but because sport itself is not virtuous (cheating is rewarded if it gets the win) that the ban should be maintained.
What were the suggestions for WADA in terms of doping?
encourage athletes to become more virtuous so that they do not need to coerce athletes into following the rule
Who wrote about Transhumans in Sport and what was their view?
Culbertson wrote about Transhumans in sport and believed that there was not evidence to support allowing or banning but the bigger point was in historical action
What is Historical Action and which author wrote about it?
Culbertson wrote about historical action for Transhumans (cyborgs) in Sport.
- Historical action is anything that alters the material conditions in which we live and has 2 components:
- Constrains future action and deviates from original goal
- Impossible to predict human reactions to intended consequences and this is the source of unpredictability
Who wrote in favour of Violence in sport?
McAleer
He allowed violence under 3 premise’s:
- Team unity is important for success
- Retaliation promotes team unity
- Sport’s purpose is exercise distinctive excellence
McAllen focused on Moral Sense of harm where some form of wrongful harm is done.
Who was against violence in sport and what was their view?
Dixon was against violence in sport, they believed that violence is never justified except in the case of self defence. There are other options:
- Denounce, Imprison, Fine/Penalty
- Dixon took a A.C. Deontology approach and applied the CI to society, and found that we could not allow violent retalitation. Also sport is supposed to be “best of man”
What ethical frame work did McAleer work from? What was Dixon’s response?
McAleer: Utilitarian argument can be made as retaliation will reduce future incidents thus overall well being is up.
Dixon: Cannot harm for past acts or future acts, and McAleer, your fucking argument is bullshit since it would;t work in society, ex. LA riots when justice system failed. If sport is expected to be “the best of us” then they must be held to the same standard as society and not be allowed to shit kick one another
Golden Mean for Winning/
Golden Mean for performance
Winning
Deficient = Indifference
Excessive = Fanatic
Moderate = Caring
Performance
D = Mediocrity
E = Perfection (no more sport, everything equal)
M = Excellence
