Ethical Theories in Sports - Coursework Example

Running Head: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS IN SPORT Name Course Instructor Date An Ethical Analysis of the Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport The list of the athletes who have been stripped their tittles for being involved in doping or use of performance enhancement drugs has been growing. In a period where competition has become intense pressure for the athletes to perform their best has been overwhelming. This has led to athletes turning to enhancement drugs to help them in training and subsequent winning during competitions. As the use of enhancement drugs become widespread and the anti-doping laws become stricter more controversies have been witnessed regarding the ethical issues and policies (Murray 2007). A debate based on the ethics has emerged with one side of the divide arguing that performance enhancement drugs should be legalized while the other side vehemently opposes this side of thinking basing their opinion on the lenses of moral and ethical issues (Foody and Savulescu2007). This paper carries out an analysis of the use of the performance enhancing drugs in sports. In the analysis the paper’s position is that it is wrong for the athletes to use performance enhancement drugs. The position taken will be looked along the five ethical theories, namely: utilitarianism (act and rule), Kantian deontology, Rawls’ theory of justice, rights and the challenge of normative ethical relativism. Performance Enhancement Drugs are substances that people use to improve their performance in activities which they participate. Some of these drugs include; the stimulants, sedatives, diuretics, painkillers among others (Murray 2007). Those who are against the drugs feel that the users get unfair advantage against those who do not use, while others point at the possible side effects which the users may suffer and the subsequent health problems that they may find themselves at. The role model factor has also been mentioned as a strong pointer why use of these drugs is unethical. Young people look upon athletes as their role models, if they indulge in use of enhancement of the drugs most likely the young people will copy them (Murray 2007) (Foody and Savulescu2007). Sporting activities are usually competition which have a formal set of rules that every player or participant is supposed to follow. The rule usually determines how a participant should conduct himself or herself. One of the rules is fairness, that is, no participant should be accorded privilege or put others at a disadvantaged position (Murray 2007). Use of performance enhancement drugs gives the player an unfair advantage over the other competitors (Foody and Savulescu2007). The use of these drugs is prohibited by the rules which govern a sport; therefore using them not only leads to breaking of the rules but also qualifies the action as cheating. Somebody who cheats in a competition is not only in the violation of the rules but also promotes unfairness in the game. In breaking the rules which are supposed to determine who wins and losses, the cheater may not claim to have won (Murray 2007). It was plainly not a fair competition. (Simon 1984)A scenario which would clearly drive the point home is a situation where two teams ,one is poor while the other one is reach, the rich team bribes the referee and all the officials and at the end they win the game. The poor team would have lost unfairly; therefore the person who wins a competition after using enhancement drugs does it unfairly and is not worth the title. (Simon 1984)Utilitarian principle states that as human being we should seek to do right and seek actions which benefit the majority. Through use of enhancement drugs, one will be seeking personal glory or even that of the country. The participants who would not have used the drugs will have lost unfairly and their hard work has been rendered useless due to practices which are not in line with the rules set in the game (Murray 2007) (Simon 1984). Based on the principle of utilitarian use of these drugs will be wrong since it will have denied the genuine winners a chance to celebrate their hard work, efforts and dedication. It will have portrayed to the humanity that one does not have to prepare himself adequately, enhancement drugs is all it takes to be a champion in a sporting event (Simon 2007) (Foody and Savulescu2007). The principle of utilitarian is supposed to guide an individual towards actions which make a world a better place to live in or basically produce a better world. When an athlete uses performance enhancement drugs, he or she trashes the culture of hard work and endurance but instead promotes short cuts and cheating (Murray 2007). The fact that an athletes is looked upon by many as a role model especially the young people, means that they are likely to emulate his doping behaviour and lead to increased use of enhancement drugs. Away from the field of sports, those who look upon the athlete as a role model will apply the same principles in their activities. They will have learnt from the athlete actions that one can do anything to win a competition regardless of whether it is allowed or not. The action allows the culture of deviance and laziness, vices that do not in any way contribute to a better world (Murray 2007) (Simon 2007). According to the principle of utilitarianism, use of enhancement drugs is wrong. Although one may argue that it will lead to an improved performance for an individual and perhaps his or her country, it will be against the interest of the majority, since it only maximizes the greatest of an individual while that of the greatest number is violated. The fact that the act itself is not within the rules of the game and to a large extent the laws of a country, further makes it wrong by all means (Murray 2007). To deontologists the outcome is not significant, the means that one uses to accomplish the objectives are more important than what is achieved at the end of it all. Sports may benefit the participants as well as the whole society through promotion of the positive values (Simon 1984) (Foody and Savulescu2007). If the means which are used to compete in the sports are not fair, it does not matter whether the greatest number is benefits. A country football team may win an international tournament; the team is awarded gifts while the country status in the international arena rises to high levels. While this may be good for the team as well as their country’s image, it would be wrong if the team used unfair means to win the game. If the players were on performance enhancement drugs, the competition would not have been fair.The team had an advantage over the rival since the players were not in the status that the world governing rules prescribe. The will have broken the rules and therefore their win would not be valid (Murray 2007) (Simon 2007 (Foody and Savulescu2007) . For deontologist positive outcome of an action would be disregarded when making a determination whether the use of enhancement drugs in sports is ethical. (Simon 1984) Since the players would have involved themselves in an illegal activity through their consumption of substances which are not allowed in the game, their acts would not be justified even if they brought glory for themselves and their country. (Catlin and Murray 1996) (Foody and Savulescu2007) As far as the theory of utilitarianism and deontology are concerned, there is an agreement that use of performance enhancement drugs is wrong. Although the approach of the two theories is different looking at this act through the two principles will come to the same conclusion. To a utilitarian, the act should be for the promotion of the good in the society, when unfair rules are used in a game, some members of the society will be disadvantaged either through losing unfairly or society learning what is wrong based on the influence of the athletes in the community. (Simon 1984) (Catlin and Murray 1996)A deontologist is interested in the means of achieving something rather than the results, if the means are wrong then the act qualifies to be unethical. The results may have been beneficial to the whole community but the procedure which was used is not within the laid down parameters. (Murray 2007) (Simon 2007) This kind of analysis when it comes to determining what is right or wrong would encourage people to use the right means to achieve something and at the same time reject a wrong procedure even if they are bound to benefit from the act. It agitates for people to promote a just society where people do not violate others right in the name of benefiting a group in the society or even the society as a whole. Winning in a given competition can bring fame, rich awards, sponsorship and endorsement to the athlete. These gains can motivate the athlete to use any means to win the competition, for a deontologist to view the game as fair the means which a player uses ought to be legal and in line with the rules that are set. This is what a professional athlete should engage in, a play that promotes fairness and winners have no added advantage. One should not use unethical means to win a competition, and this includes the use of enhancement drugs. (Murray 2007) (Catlin and Murray 1996) (Simon 2007) While one should also consider the issue of harm brought about by drugs enhancement, the most significant of all is the purpose of the sport. A sporting activities and subsequent competition aims at challenging the participant to train hard and get the best results compared to the other competitors. When one uses drugs, the athlete pushes beyond the abilities. Sport promotes the spirit of hard work and anything else that comes in between is outright cheating no matter what explanation one may give to justify its use. If the use of performance drugs is to be justified, it should be used by all the participants such that they have an equal footing. (Simon 1984)This move would be without the consideration of the effect that the drug would bring to the athletes, their health would be compromised and the issue of equality would arise. The sponsors and coaches would also take advantage and encourage the athletes to use their drugs and ultimately win the competition oblivious of the dangers they will be putting themselves into. (Murray 2007) According to the Rawls theory of justice, sporting activities are supposed to be based on fairness and equality, at the same time individuals have a free choice. This does not mean that the participants are accorded the right to choose whether they are to use the enhancement drugs, as long as they are in the competition, they ought to play by the rules. (Simon 1984)If somebody chose to take the enhancement drugs, they should disqualify themselves from participating in a competition, since they have an added advantage and have acted contrary to the rules. (Murray 2007) The principle of ethical relativism would not fit well in analysis the use of performance drugs in a given competition. When analysing different games, the rule of relativism may be applied. The rules of a given game remain the same and are not in any way dictated by culture; therefore what is wrong in one culture will also be wrong in a different one. Use of enhancement drugs will be ethical in one setting and remain justified in the other; this would undermine the credibility of the game since different rules are used to guide people in similar professions but in diverse regions. (Simon 1984) (Foody and Savulescu2007) People who are administering the performance enhancement drugs have the responsibility and duty of informing the athlete of the dangers and risks they may be putting themselves in. This will in essence influence their decision and be in position to come with a conclusion based on an informed platform. (Foody and Savulescu2007) Use of performance enhancement drugs is ethically wrong since it discourages fairness among the competitors and at the same time it does not contribute to the welfare of the society. Participants should aim at wining fairly where all have the same footing. Advocating for use of performance enhancement drugs will not only deny people to use their abilities to compete in a game but also eliminate the very purpose of a competition. Reference Murray, T (2007) “Enhancement,” in The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics, ed. Bonnie Steinbock, Oxford University Press Catlin,D and Murray,T(1996) “Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Fair Competition, and Olympic Sport.”Journal of the American Medical Association Simon, R (2007) Fair Play: Ethics in Sports Foody,B and Savulescu (2007)Ethics of Performance Enhancement Drugs and Gene Doping, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Wiley Simon,R (1984) Good Competition and Performance Enhancement Drugs, Journal of philosophy of Sports, Taylor and Francis. Read More

Somebody who cheats in a competition is not only in the violation of the rules but also promotes unfairness in the game. In breaking the rules which are supposed to determine who wins and losses, the cheater may not claim to have won (Murray 2007). It was plainly not a fair competition. (Simon 1984)A scenario which would clearly drive the point home is a situation where two teams ,one is poor while the other one is reach, the rich team bribes the referee and all the officials and at the end they win the game.

The poor team would have lost unfairly; therefore the person who wins a competition after using enhancement drugs does it unfairly and is not worth the title. (Simon 1984)Utilitarian principle states that as human being we should seek to do right and seek actions which benefit the majority. Through use of enhancement drugs, one will be seeking personal glory or even that of the country. The participants who would not have used the drugs will have lost unfairly and their hard work has been rendered useless due to practices which are not in line with the rules set in the game (Murray 2007) (Simon 1984).

Based on the principle of utilitarian use of these drugs will be wrong since it will have denied the genuine winners a chance to celebrate their hard work, efforts and dedication. It will have portrayed to the humanity that one does not have to prepare himself adequately, enhancement drugs is all it takes to be a champion in a sporting event (Simon 2007) (Foody and Savulescu2007). The principle of utilitarian is supposed to guide an individual towards actions which make a world a better place to live in or basically produce a better world.

When an athlete uses performance enhancement drugs, he or she trashes the culture of hard work and endurance but instead promotes short cuts and cheating (Murray 2007). The fact that an athletes is looked upon by many as a role model especially the young people, means that they are likely to emulate his doping behaviour and lead to increased use of enhancement drugs. Away from the field of sports, those who look upon the athlete as a role model will apply the same principles in their activities.

They will have learnt from the athlete actions that one can do anything to win a competition regardless of whether it is allowed or not. The action allows the culture of deviance and laziness, vices that do not in any way contribute to a better world (Murray 2007) (Simon 2007). According to the principle of utilitarianism, use of enhancement drugs is wrong. Although one may argue that it will lead to an improved performance for an individual and perhaps his or her country, it will be against the interest of the majority, since it only maximizes the greatest of an individual while that of the greatest number is violated.

The fact that the act itself is not within the rules of the game and to a large extent the laws of a country, further makes it wrong by all means (Murray 2007). To deontologists the outcome is not significant, the means that one uses to accomplish the objectives are more important than what is achieved at the end of it all. Sports may benefit the participants as well as the whole society through promotion of the positive values (Simon 1984) (Foody and Savulescu2007). If the means which are used to compete in the sports are not fair, it does not matter whether the greatest number is benefits.

A country football team may win an international tournament; the team is awarded gifts while the country status in the international arena rises to high levels. While this may be good for the team as well as their country’s image, it would be wrong if the team used unfair means to win the game. If the players were on performance enhancement drugs, the competition would not have been fair.The team had an advantage over the rival since the players were not in the status that the world governing rules prescribe.

The will have broken the rules and therefore their win would not be valid (Murray 2007) (Simon 2007 (Foody and Savulescu2007) .

Read More