sport ethics test 2

fairness argument

"The Genetic Ghetto" - Enhancement will create (through costs) haves and have-nots. - But we tolerate other inequalities including natural genetic disparities. If those are fair why not genetic enhancement?

weaknesses of plato

"dualistic"; elevates the abstract over the tangible and the "spirit" above the "body"; Plato is an idealist, out of touch with the "real world"; Plato's theory is actually about extrinsic justification; "ordering the soul"is about what is "good for" human beings.

Blindness

"sex equality in sports requires that we pay no attention to the participants' sex." (p.130)

assimilation

"sex equality is achieved when...no more significance is attached to the sex of a person than is attached to eye color." (p. 131) - Separate teams inherently unequal - Sex roles constrain our "autonomy"

autonomy argument

(a cherished liberal value) - Children should not be subject to parental design. • Turns them into "means" (Kant) • Argument Simon ignores: We can't trust people to make such choices; it grants too much power (checks and balances) - Won't children be free to reject their parents; just as they are now? - Couldn't someone argue that parental autonomy suggests they should be allowed to design their children?

Steroids

- Perhaps if we can construct a rational argument for banning them, it can be applied to other substances as well. - Reasons to question use: • 1. Harmful to athletes health • 2. Use is coercive • 3. It is unfair; cheating • 4. Violates the norms or ideals of sport • 5. Use cheapens the test - Are there still reasons proponents can give for allowing their use?- Yes. Paternalism: people making decisions for other people. - Athletes should be able to make their own choices. • Just like we're free to take risks by eating cheeseburgers, going hang-gliding, and smoking. • If athletes know the risk and choose to dope, that is their own decision.

Theology/nature argument

- Ultimately unpersuasive; Reason not theology; "Nature" too squishy; too hard to determine the natural. • (Are antibiotics unnatural?) • (Should gene therapy be considered a natural product of human reason?) - Liberal political theory more effective as it is based on reason. • Is that fair? Didn't theology influence liberal theory? ("endowed by our Creator...", etc.) • Nietzsche: Without Christianity human dignity is a myth. - Theological arguments may be strong or weak, but should not be rejected a priori - that is, prior to a fair evaluation on the merits of the argument. • An argument should be rejected on the merits not simply because it's theological.

• "The operative principle should be equal concern and respect for all participants, and this may sometimes justify differences in actual treatment." (p. 154) • "Sex equality does not always require forgetting sex but sometimes demands showing equal respect for difference." (p. 154)

2 important closing thoughts

blindness and pluralism

2 rival views of sex equity

somatic and germline

2 types of genetic alteration

theology/nature; autonomy; fairness

3 arguments against enhancement

somatic

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.

germline

Altering the genetic code at "the roots" (sex cells). - We design our children; and their posterity by directly selecting their genetics.

sex blindness

An near universal abstract commitment to "sex equality" may hide deep disagreement on how Title IX should be understood and enforced

argument #1 of a defense of college athletics

Athletics is useful. It provides many goods (pleasures) beyond profit. - E.g. entertainment; why shouldn't this be valued as it is in music, theater, dance, etc. - This often fits the "service" element of many university mission statements. • Normative vs. descriptive comes into play here...

- Even without complete clarity we do need to make decision regarding what is right. • Analogies: Voting age, drinking age, etc. - "We need to avoid the fallacy of insisting that if we cannot find the perfect place to draw a line, we should draw no line at all." (p. 107) - Reasonable conclusions should be supported, and the majority even without a perfect argument are wary of steroids, therefore current prohibitions are justified.

Both sides have points.

- "Keeping up with the Joneses". • An unfair choice: use and risk health 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,, thereby invalidating records.

Reasons to continue support for a ban:

• Are steroids induced records (like Bonds 72 hr season) legitimate? • Yes: - Different eras are incommensurate • Ruth didn't face black pitchers, the mound height has changed, etc. - Pitchers also used (doesn't that level things?) - Steroids are not magic; doped athletes need immense skill • No: - Massive surge in home runs proves the effect of steroids. - Rules prohibited drug use without prescription; steroid use requires prescription, therefore the players cheated. • To allow such records to stand will embolden cheaters.

Records?

argument #2 of a defense of college athletics

Rightly understood athletics enhances the academic mission of the university. - (Former NCAA Pres.) Myles Brand: Musicians, artists, athletes are very similar in training, types of skills (kinesthetic), etc. Why then are some considered to be pursuing academic subjects while others are not? • Counter: Does the emphasis on winning and money problematize this argument? - Rejoinder: Artists aim at excellence, most athletics events aren't high profile. - Much hangs on how athletics is conceived and run. It seems hard to reconcile the DI "big-time" model to Brand's vision. • Would a "kinesiology" or "physical education" model be defensible?

Pluralism

Separate teams and opportunities for separate sexes

• Divert funds where appropriate - Cut back on excesses and use to build women's programs • Expand women's opportunities at the grass roots (Developmental Leagues) - Build the pool of female athletes • Cutting men's teams a last resort - Cut travel budgets, roster spots, etc. first • Raise the importance of Athletics overall - Build the institutional budgetary commitment; at least in some circumstances, it seems that expanded opportunities could be more important than "the addition of administrative positions or renovation projects" (p. 150)

Simon's possible solutions

internalism

Sport is a "significant source" of ethical values.-- Suits rule bound approach is _______

externalism

Sport simply mirrors and reinforces values of the larger society.--Capitalist society will promote sport with intense competition

• Unfair because it gives an advantage over competitors? • Unfair because it makes the game too easy? - Like golf balls that fly straight independent of skill, perhaps steroids cheapen the test. - Yet where does one draw the line? • Many innovations accepted - Improved diets, practice facilities, equipment, technology, etc.

Steroids as Cheating?

argument #3 of a defense of college athletics

The mutual quest for excellence reinforces academic values. - "In calling for the best that is within each participant, a good athletic program can provide educational experiences that unusually intense and unusually valuable and that reinforce and help develop many of the same traits that promote learning elsewhere" (p.176) - Again one must consider normative versus descriptive distinctions here. • This may work in principle, is it working in practice (are such benefits being produced by athletics as currently practiced)? • Perhaps the DIII "small school" model shows how this does work in practice?

strong version

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

weak version

There is a fundamental incompatibility between academic values and elite "big-time" division I athletics - What is the value of intercollegiate athletics?

general level and specific level

Title IX combines elements of each approach into what levels

• Schools still spend more on programs for men than women • Rates of participation for males is higher • Male athletes/teams receive far more attention and support from the general public

Title IX hasnt achieved equity?

-Arg #1: Athletics is useful. It provides many goods (pleasures) beyond profit. -Arg. #2: Rightly understood athletics enhances the academic mission of the university. -Arg. #3: The mutual quest for excellence reinforces academic values.

a defense of college athletics arguments

• Perhaps men and women have different levels interest in athletics by nature? • No! Women have never been encouraged to participate - Are colleges required to respond to hypothetical interest? - Yes! We require exposure to Shakespeare even if students don't want to be exposed. - But athletics is an elective, and we don't require men to have a proportional % on the dance team.

a key question: are women less interested?

strengths of plato

ability to raise important questions; justice is about "reality". - Nothing more important than the truth, not even utility.

• A preliminary conclusion: "athletes who use steroids have no right to put other athletes in the position of either damaging their health or of competing under a significant disadvantage." (p. 94) - It is an unfair choice!

an unfair choice

• Arguments against PEDs are not as strong as Simon initially thought. - Yet he's still convinced that good (though not perfect) arguments for banning them exist. • Therefore his inclination is to be cautious regarding genetic enhancement as well. - Could cheapen the test, seems to threaten autonomy, raises concerns over equality

conclusion

- Distribution: everybody gets exactly the same thing. - Concern: Playing time on bb team, medicine not split between two kids, but given to the sick child, etc. • Equal respect may in fact require inequities in sport, at least in so far as we choose to play and we don't want to be patronized.

equal distribution v. equal concern and respect

general level

equivalent opportunities

Equivalent: Computers vs. band - Different budgets could still imply equivalent treatment • "Equal respect and concern" - But is this how things are actually measured in Title IX? - Simon will focus on: "accommodation of athletic interests and abilities" because that is where most of the controversy lies.

equivalent?

consequentialism

essentially turning morality into a tool

the intrinsic argument

goodness is sufficient unto itself; "The _______ school argues that the good, if it really is good, is its own justification". - "Therefore their commitment to the rightness of any good action (insofar as it really is good) is unassailable"; Plato and the "Ring of Gyges"

strong version and weak version

incompatibility thesis (2 versions)

• 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

• Proportionality seem plausible - But there are problems or concerns • Plank #1 much easier to demonstrate than the other two. - Proportionality can be quantified - Expansion (plank #2) can't last forever - How does one measure (plank #3) and then demonstrate that they have met "interests & abilities"? • Another problem: There is a disproportion at high school, how can that be remedied in college? - There aren't enough female athletes to go around - The logical solution then is to reduce opportunities for men until you get your numbers in line. • When this happens it doesn't increase female opportunities • Wasn't increasing female opportunities the point?

proportionality: the safe harbor?

*Pluralism reinforces traditional sex-roles! - But isn't the point of the women's teams to expand their opportunity? Many of the sports were traditionally male. • Basketball, Lacrosse, Hockey • If we had one team then few women would make the cut. - Separate teams actually break down sex roles by showing women are capable of playing "male" sports. • Rejoinder: but if sex "didn't matter" people wouldn't care that there are few women because they "wouldn't notice" sex as important *Pluralism is fundamentally unfair. By suggesting that women need separate teams we're suggesting inferiority. (stigma) - Yet if we went the assimilationist route, there would be even less female athletes and even less recognition. Is that preferable? • Would it create less stigma? - Also some women's sports appear to be more interesting than some men's • Tennis, golf, volleyball, etc. - Which means the physiological inferiority doesn't need to imply competitive, skill, or excitement inferiority.

reasons to question pluralism

• Not all advances in equipment are embraced for the very reason that they threaten competition • Those that are accepted have good reason: - Many remedy "defective" equipment • E.g. steel rather than wooden golf shafts. - Other advances are accepted because the "make the game better" (broad internalism) • E.g. the sand wedge in golf. • A mutual quest for excellence doesn't seem to fit with "who has the better tolerance for drugs?" - Isn't sport supposed to be about the better athlete?

responses

specific level

separate teams best way to promote equivalent opportunity.

• people may still prefer the more traditional sports, even the women athletes. • Any requirement to participate would violate personal liberty. (We have ways of making you a gymnast!) - Also, would tacitly imply sex roles by endorsing "female" and "male" sports?

simon's caveats for sport built to serve men:

"Living an ethical life is not self-sacrifice, but rather self-fulfillment." (p. vii)

singer's thesis

• Problem goes back to at least the 1960's - Though not everyone agrees that steroids are a health risk, the general consensus is that there are serious side-effects even if the threats have sometimes been exaggerated. • E.g. Masculine physique and hair (women), liver damage, low sperm count (men), hypertension... - How many athletes are doping is unclear, but most observers think it is commonplace. • Scandals make this clear (Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Roger Clemens, Jose Canseco, Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Shawn Merriman etc.)

steroids and other peds

1. Distinguish sport from other activities 2. Explain the features of sport which make it so appealing 3. Provide for the moral evaluation of sport

theories of sport

• Compliance: Satisfy any one of the following three: - 1. proportionality • E.g. 60%/40% student body should have 60%/40% athletes - 2. History and continuing practice of expansion for the under-represented sex - 3. Interests and abilities of the under-represented are "fully and effectively accommodated." • What philosophic assumptions underlie the term "under-represented?"

title IX enforcement: 3 part test

The extrinsic argument

we ought pursue the good because, at least in the long run, it will be good for us; "The _____ school bases its justification in the consequences of the action" - Therefore, "its commitment to the goodness of any action is always contingent. The goodness of the action only depends upon the results that action procures."; Singer and "Tit for Tat"

• 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 an informed and free decision?

weaknesses of harm principle

• "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" • How has this been understood to apply to athletics? - Equivalent treatment in terms of scholarships, accommodation of athletic interests and abilities, and other athletic benefits and awards (travel, practice, etc.)

what does title ix require?

1) the intrinsic argument 2) the extrinsic argument

why be good? 2 approaches

problems with entertainment argument

• 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) - Is that true? • Abuses within athletics are far higher than in the arts - A focus on entertainment does nothing more than ignore that reality.

sex pluralism

• No rigid sex roles, but there may be important differences - Equitable treatment may very well imply separate teams. (at least in many sports) - Criticism: Doesn't this reinforce sex differences and thereby subtlety support sex discrimination?

• Mill's principle would allow us to prevent them from using. • Furthermore even paternalistic interference with adults could be justified by the "setting a bad example" argument - Adult use harms kids by encouraging them to use. • Yet other "vices" are always not banned because they are a bad example (e.g. alcohol). - Why the inconsistency?

Children/Minors

• Gene Therapy promises great benefits as well as great dangers - Benefits: cure genetic diseases; personalize treatment to fit unique genetic profile. - Harms: cloning; genetic engineering (choosing a child's attributes). • Danger? Turn humans into "means" not "ends in themselves" (we're useful to others and their definitions of "good attributes") - "blonde is beautiful"? - Could resurrect/further eugenics; the desire to weed out "defective" attributes and persons (handicapped, etc.)

Genetic therapy

• 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." (p.88) - If we're free to judge what risks are worth taking shouldn't athletes have that same freedom?

J.S. Mill's Harm Principle

transcendence

Justice does not serve us, we serve justice...justice is the good, so we cannot ultimately be successful in opposition to it.

• "Thus, steroid use may seem rational if users think only about themselves and hope to secure advantages over non-users. But if they must think impartially about what is an acceptable universal practice, steroid use no longer seems rational This is why the use of steroids seems to many to be a form of cheating. The user operates from principles that could not be consented to as a principle applying to all." (p. 98) - Counter: perhaps athletes value strength, excellence, etc. as more important than health. • Rejoinder: Sport organizations should promote "collective impartial choice" not be paralyzed by the potential idiosyncrasies of individual athletes

Making an exception of oneself