Test 4 Flashcards
People making decisions for other people.
Paternalism
Reasons to question steroid use.
Harmful to athletes health Use is coercive It is unfair, cheating Violates the norms or ideals of sport Use cheapens the test
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?
J.S. Mill’s Harm Principle
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?
Weaknesses of Harm Principle (Paternalism)
“May factor into the ultimate case against steroid use, but cannot bear the whole weight of the argument”
Paternalism
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…”
Coercion
“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.”
Steroids an Unfair Choice
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.
Making an Exception of Oneself
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.
Reasons to Support of Ban of Steroids
Benefits of Gene Therapy
Cure genetic diseases
Personalize treatment to fit unique genetic profile
Different eras are incommensurate.
Pitchers also used.
Steroids are not magic; doped athletes need immense skill.
Yes to Steroid Records
Massive surge in home runs proves the effect of steroids.
Rules prohibit drug use without prescription; steroid use requires prescription, therefore the players cheated.
No to Steroid Records
If everybody uses steroids.
Little Advantage, Great Potential for Harm
If nobody uses.
Little Advantage, No Health Risks
Reasonable conclusions should be supported, and the majority even without a perfect argument are wary of steroids.
Prohibitions of Steroids are Justified
Harms of Gene Therapy
Cloning
Genetic engineering
Turns humans into “means” not “ends in themselves”
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.)
Dangers of Gene Therapy
Two types of genetic alteration
Somatic
Germline
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).
Somatic
Altering the genetic code at “the roots” (sex cells).
We design our children; and their posterity by directly selecting their genetics.
Germline
Three arguments against enhancement
Theology/Nature
Autonomy
Fairness
Choosing a child’s attributes.
Genetic Engineering
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.
Theology/Nature
A cherished liberal value.
Children should not be subjected to parental design. (Turns them into “means”)
Autonomy
“The Genetic Ghetto”
Enhancement will create (through costs) haves and have-nots.
Fairness
Valuing people for who they are (their attributes, skills, characteristics rather than what they are, their nature (human)).
People reduced to use value.
Commodifying People
Two rival views of sex equity
Title IX combines elements of each approach.
Sex Blindness
Sex Pluralism
“sex equality is sports requires that we pay no attention to the participants’ sex.”
Blindness
Separate teams and opportunities for separate sexes.
Pluralism
Title IX combines elements of sex blindness and sex pluralism.
General Level:
Equivalent Opportunities
Title IX combines elements of sex blindness and sex pluralism.
Specific Level:
Separate Teams Way to Promote Equivalent Opportunity
A near universal abstract commitment to “sex equality” may hide deep disagreement on how Title IX should be understood and enforced.
Assimilation
Sex Blindness
“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”
Assimilation
Everybody gets exactly the same thing.
Equal Distribution
Playing time on basketball team, medicine not split between twos kids, but given to the sick child, etc.
Equal Concern
May require inequities in sport, at least in so far as we choose to play and we don’t want to be patronized.
Equal Respect
No rigid sex roles, but there may be important differences.
Equitable treatment may very well imply separate teams. (at least in many sports).
Sex Pluralism
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).
Problems with Assimilation
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)
Reasons to Question Pluralism
“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.)
Requirements of Title IX
Title IX three part test
Proportionality
History and continuing practice of expansion for under-represented sex.
Interests and abilities fully accommodated of under-represented sex.
Seems plausible.
Much easier to demonstrate than the other two.
Can be quantified.
Expansion can’t last forever.
Proportionality the Safe Harbor
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.
Simon’s Possible Solutions to Title IX
There is a fundamental incompatibility between academic values and any serious form of athletics.
Strong Version (Incompatibility Thesis)
There is a fundamental incompatibility between academic values and elite “big-time” division I athletics.
Weak Version (Incompatibility Thesis)
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.
Case Against Collegiate Athletics
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.
Arguments for College Athletics
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.
Athletics Provides Many Goods (Pleasures) Beyond Profit
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).
Problems with Entertainment Argument
