tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post8052029761995031869..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Doping, Slippery Slopes and Moral VirtuesJohn Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-82421879571083521342012-01-30T23:39:35.464+00:002012-01-30T23:39:35.464+00:00Which returns to moral luck, in that harm will not...Which returns to moral luck, in that harm will not be distributed evenly, while pleasure is experienced by all participants. Anyway, I am straying a bit from performance enhancement.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12142997170025811780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-78385004774622088932012-01-30T15:12:34.665+00:002012-01-30T15:12:34.665+00:00Yes well I think it would come down then to how we...Yes well I think it would come down then to how we relate different moral values. You might argue that the badness of "harm" and (say) the goodness of "physical toughness" are incommensurable. So if there is an activity which celebrates physical toughness but comes at the expense of harm, there is no way to decide whether it is good or bad.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether I'm that pessimistic. I tend to think there is some way to rank activities like this (probably ordinally). I definitely feel like some forms of harm (or risk of harm) are tolerable because they allow us to attain something of great value, like, perhaps, the experience you have when you go rock climbing.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-21434934797142015182012-01-30T13:13:17.110+00:002012-01-30T13:13:17.110+00:00I did read your series earlier where you discuss t...I did read your series earlier where you discuss the integrity etc arguments [I should mention in passing that your blog posts are all excellent reads and invariably provoke at least <i>some</i> thoughts in my head]. These ideas seem implicit in the McNamee book too, but I can't see a plausible way to balance off a harm versus a celebration. Undoubtedly we do make exactly those kinds of choices everyday (I rock climb...)David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12142997170025811780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-29679426209619480252012-01-29T21:35:01.771+00:002012-01-29T21:35:01.771+00:00I think I address that idea somewhere else in this...I think I address that idea somewhere else in this series of posts. Basically, you could view the rules as completely arbitrary and open to change by agreement, or you could take the view that the rules are used to create a forum for a particular kind of human excellence (which is not arbitrary) to be celebrated. If you take the latter view, there may be moral constraints on the flexibility of the rules that go beyond just fairness and harm.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-72018397250186760382012-01-29T00:53:39.366+00:002012-01-29T00:53:39.366+00:00(4) If you accept the moral legitimacy of treating...(4) If you accept the moral legitimacy of treating sports injuries, then you ought to accept the moral legitimacy of preventing sports injuries.<br /><br />sure, but <br /><br />(5b) If you accept the legitimacy of preventing sports injuries, then you ought to accept the legitimacy of banning the playing of American football.<br /><br />There are numerous hidden premises going from 4 to 5. <br /><br />If we are discussing a human institution like the rules of a game, I can't see how moral arguments like these about anti-doping rules can work, since the rules can be changed by agreement of the sporting body, players and the interested spectators. The use of caffeine as a stimulant is now acceptable in many sports. So, whether doped-up performances is fraudulent or unfair is by agreement of all the parties, and is as likely to be based on aesthetic grounds as on health risks to participants.<br /><br />Many medical bodies regard boxing as an unethical sport, because of the harm incurred by participants, even if they enter freely into the sport, and are aware of the risks. We can tinker with rules to minimize harm, but it seems impossible to completely remove this risk.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12142997170025811780noreply@blogger.com