Test 4 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
0
Q

People making decisions for other people.

A

Paternalism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Reasons to question steroid use.

A
Harmful to athletes health
Use is coercive
It is unfair, cheating
Violates the norms or ideals of sport
Use cheapens the test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Paternalism restricts liberty.
“that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
If we’re free to judge what risks are worth taking shouldn’t athletes have that same freedom?

A

J.S. Mill’s Harm Principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Even Mill admitted it has limits.
Children are excluded for instance.
As are those who are misinformed or coerced.
So can we safely say that athletes are making in informed and free decision?

A

Weaknesses of Harm Principle (Paternalism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

“May factor into the ultimate case against steroid use, but cannot bear the whole weight of the argument”

A

Paternalism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Free choice? Not in pro sports for sure. The athlete’s livelihood may ride on competing at the highest level.
To keep up in terms of competition.
“Athletes who would prefer not to become users may believe that unless they take the drugs they will not be able to compete…”

A

Coercion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“Athletes who use steroids have no right to put other athletes in the position of either damaging their health or competing under a significant disadvantage.”

A

Steroids an Unfair Choice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Many intuit that steroid use is cheating (unfair) because it makes sense only from a self-centered rather than universal point of view.
Similar to Singer and the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

A

Making an Exception of Oneself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

An unfair choice: use and risk or fail to compete.
The rational universal rule seems to be non use.
Use begins to transform people into tools of sport (more so than diets, training, etc.).
Use will cause harm to others by promoting use by those uniformed or under the age of consent.
Use cheapens the test, by making it too easy.

A

Reasons to Support of Ban of Steroids

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Benefits of Gene Therapy

A

Cure genetic diseases

Personalize treatment to fit unique genetic profile

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Different eras are incommensurate.
Pitchers also used.
Steroids are not magic; doped athletes need immense skill.

A

Yes to Steroid Records

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Massive surge in home runs proves the effect of steroids.

Rules prohibit drug use without prescription; steroid use requires prescription, therefore the players cheated.

A

No to Steroid Records

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

If everybody uses steroids.

A

Little Advantage, Great Potential for Harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

If nobody uses.

A

Little Advantage, No Health Risks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Reasonable conclusions should be supported, and the majority even without a perfect argument are wary of steroids.

A

Prohibitions of Steroids are Justified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Harms of Gene Therapy

A

Cloning
Genetic engineering
Turns humans into “means” not “ends in themselves”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Turns humans into “means” not “ends in themselves” (we’re useful to others and their definitions of “good attributes”).
Could resurrect/further eugenics; the desire to weed out “defective” attributes and persons (handicapped, etc.)

A

Dangers of Gene Therapy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Two types of genetic alteration

A

Somatic

Germline

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Altering an individual flaw; usually in an adult.
Could be done therapeutically or as enhancement.
Would not affect reproductive cells (would be limited to that individual).

A

Somatic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Altering the genetic code at “the roots” (sex cells).

We design our children; and their posterity by directly selecting their genetics.

A

Germline

18
Q

Three arguments against enhancement

A

Theology/Nature
Autonomy
Fairness

19
Q

Choosing a child’s attributes.

A

Genetic Engineering

20
Q

Ultimately unpersuasive.
Liberal political theory more effective as it is based on reason.
Arguments may be strong or weak, should not be rejected prior to a fair evaluation on the merits of the argument.

A

Theology/Nature

21
Q

A cherished liberal value.

Children should not be subjected to parental design. (Turns them into “means”)

A

Autonomy

22
Q

“The Genetic Ghetto”

Enhancement will create (through costs) haves and have-nots.

A

Fairness

23
Q

Valuing people for who they are (their attributes, skills, characteristics rather than what they are, their nature (human)).
People reduced to use value.

A

Commodifying People

24
Q

Two rival views of sex equity

Title IX combines elements of each approach.

A

Sex Blindness

Sex Pluralism

25
Q

“sex equality is sports requires that we pay no attention to the participants’ sex.”

A

Blindness

26
Q

Separate teams and opportunities for separate sexes.

A

Pluralism

27
Q

Title IX combines elements of sex blindness and sex pluralism.
General Level:

A

Equivalent Opportunities

28
Q

Title IX combines elements of sex blindness and sex pluralism.
Specific Level:

A

Separate Teams Way to Promote Equivalent Opportunity

29
Q

A near universal abstract commitment to “sex equality” may hide deep disagreement on how Title IX should be understood and enforced.
Assimilation

A

Sex Blindness

30
Q

“sex equality is achieved when…no more significance is attached to the sex of a person than is attached to eye color.”
Separate teams inherently unequal.
Sex roles constrain our “autonomy”

A

Assimilation

31
Q

Everybody gets exactly the same thing.

A

Equal Distribution

32
Q

Playing time on basketball team, medicine not split between twos kids, but given to the sick child, etc.

A

Equal Concern

33
Q

May require inequities in sport, at least in so far as we choose to play and we don’t want to be patronized.

A

Equal Respect

34
Q

No rigid sex roles, but there may be important differences.

Equitable treatment may very well imply separate teams. (at least in many sports).

A

Sex Pluralism

36
Q

Ignores relevant sex-related differences.
Women may be virtually absent from sports where these differences matter. (Baseball, Football, Basketball, hockey, etc.)
Women getting closer to men in terms of performance, but still hard to deny the reality of physiological differences (and that they matter, at least in high level competition).

A

Problems with Assimilation

36
Q

Reinforces traditional sex roles.
Separate teams actually break down sex roles by showing women are capable of playing “male” sports.
Fundamentally unfair. By suggesting that women need separate teams we’re suggesting inferiority. (stigma)

A

Reasons to Question Pluralism

38
Q

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied to benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”

Equivalent treatment in terms of scholarships, accommodation of athletic interests and abilities, and other athletic benefits and awards (travel, practice, etc.)

A

Requirements of Title IX

38
Q

Title IX three part test

A

Proportionality
History and continuing practice of expansion for under-represented sex.
Interests and abilities fully accommodated of under-represented sex.

39
Q

Seems plausible.
Much easier to demonstrate than the other two.
Can be quantified.
Expansion can’t last forever.

A

Proportionality the Safe Harbor

41
Q

Divert funds where appropriate.
Expand women’s opportunities at the grass roots.
Cutting men’s teams a last resort.
Raise the importance of Athletics overall.

A

Simon’s Possible Solutions to Title IX

42
Q

There is a fundamental incompatibility between academic values and any serious form of athletics.

A

Strong Version (Incompatibility Thesis)

43
Q

There is a fundamental incompatibility between academic values and elite “big-time” division I athletics.

A

Weak Version (Incompatibility Thesis)

44
Q

Focus on external goods.
Sport has become big business.
A focus on external goods encourages universities to use studentes as “means to ends” rather than educate them.
Pressure to “win” leads to abuses that call the integrity of the institution into question.

A

Case Against Collegiate Athletics

46
Q

Athletics is useful. Provides many goods (pleasures) beyond profit.
Athletics enhances the academic mission of the university.
The mutual quest for excellence reinforces academic values.

A

Arguments for College Athletics

47
Q

Entertainment; why shouldn’t this be valued as it is in music, theater, dance, etc.
This often fits the “service” element of many universities mission statements.

A

Athletics Provides Many Goods (Pleasures) Beyond Profit

48
Q

Most programs aren’t big time and therefore aren’t entertaining.
Entertainment in sport differs in kind from the arts (one has a direct academic link and the other does not).
Abuses within athletics are far higher than in the arts. (A focus on entertainment does nothing more than ignore that reality).

A

Problems with Entertainment Argument