An Ethical Analysis of the Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport - Assignment Example

An Ethical Analysis of Drug Use in Sports Introduction It is now widely known that some athletes take performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and this issue has become one of the most discussed ethical problems in sports for the past decade. The ethical nature of drug use has been talked about, contested, and debated in all types of media. In the current competitive sports market, athletes aspire to do better or outperform their rivals because their performance will most probably determine their success (Morgan, 2007). This essay analyses the ethical issue inherent in the practice of using performance enhancing drugs in sport. The five main ethical perspective used in this essay are utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Rawl’s theory of justice, rights, and normative ethical relativism. Ethical Analysis John Mill introduced ‘utilitarianism’, a consequentialistic theory that sees good behaviour or actions as those that generate the ‘greatest good for the greatest number of people’ (Morgan, 2007, xxvii). This theory supports the knowledge about the outcomes of actions and of abiding by norms or standards encouraging these principles. Utilitarianism largely argues that the morally correct decision is the decision that generates the greatest good. There are numerous ways to explain this overall argument. One aspect worth mentioning is that the perspective is a kind of consequentialism, which states that the correct action is viewed wholly in relation to the outcomes generated (Morgan, 2007). There are two forms of utilitarianism-- act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The difference between these two lies in how or where they are used. Act utilitarianism is used in the process of choosing a specific action under a given situation, whereas rule utilitarianism is used in the selection of a cluster of guidelines, which are consequently exercised to choose a particular action in a given situation. Act utilitarianism argues that an action or behaviour becomes morally correct when it generates the most good for most people, whereas rule utilitarianism claims that the moral rightness of a decision relies on the rightness of the guidelines that enables it to attain the highest good (Berlow, 1994). Act utilitarianism is the conviction that it is fine to violate a rule so long as it creates a higher good, whereas rule utilitarianism argues that even if a principle cannot generate a higher good, violating it will not either. Rule utilitarianism is a reaction to several of the main criticisms against act utilitarianism (Simon, 2010). There are four major aspects of utilitarianism, namely, hedonistic, positive and negative, ideal, and preference. Hedonistic utilitarianism claims that the correctness of an action relies wholly on the degree of pleasure it is likely to generate and the degree of pain it is likely to avoid. Positive utilitarianism proposes the endorsement or exploitation of inherent value, whereas the negative one suggests the lessening or diminishing of inherent negative value (Simon, 2010). Ideal utilitarianism refutes that the only focus of moral consideration is getting the most out of pleasure. And lastly, preference utilitarianism argues that the good residing in the gratification of individuals’ preferences, and the correctness of an action relies on its being valuable to such gratification (Copp, 2001). With regard to a leading athlete, the team, the supporters, the benefactors, even the entire nation comprise the majority. The greatest good is certainly the elation and credit of succeeding or triumph but devoid of the disgrace of proof of drug abuse (Berlow, 1994). Drug misuse of the athlete, with the innate harm to personal wellbeing and moral ideals, is allegedly balanced or overshadowed by the joy brought about by succeeding. So as to meet the standards for the greatest good for the greatest number, the player has to cut corners, and the coach has to give up his/her honour or credibility by giving drugs rather than know-how, or by choosing to keep silent about the issue. Nevertheless, exploiting the athlete as a facilitator of the people’s joy may be considered as unscrupulous and definitely oppressive (Simon, 2010). On the other hand, Kantian deontology is the orthodox model of the right action. As argued by Kant, before acting one should take into consideration those obligations, normally in the form of rights or ideals, which s/he is indebted to other people in his/her dealings with them. The set of ideals is generally believed to have its origin in the popular ‘Golden Rule’, which says that a person should always be good to others if s/he wants them to be good to him/her, as well (Boxill, 2003). Deontological ethical perspectives are defined by an emphasis on obedience to self-governing moral obligations or principles. In order to make the right moral decisions, one has to know what his /her moral obligations are and what appropriate principles exist to guide those obligations. In short, deontologists believe that individuals’ moral obligations and ideals are given by God (Moller, 2009). The basic rule of morality, the categorical imperative (CI), is essentially the rule of an autonomous will. The notion of universalizability was introduced by Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. It is a component of the early design of his categorical imperative, which states that the single morally correct rules of individual action are those that may reasonably be established to be universal rule (Moller, 2009). The exact definition of universalizability is debatable, yet the most widespread explanation is that the CI seeks whether the rule of individual action may become universal that everybody could follow in the same situations. The universalizability of the action makes it morally satisfactory. Therefore, for deontologists, the use of PEDs among athletes is immoral, because that kind of practice violates their God-given gifts or talents by tampering on their natural abilities. Numerous people believe that personal drug use is a safe offence and an intrusion into such part of a person’s life by means of drug testing regarded unethical (Moller, 2009). From a deontological point of view, this could be valid. It is problematic to criticise drug use and defend drug testing without taking into consideration the potential effects, which are not to be regarded in Kantian deontological analysis (Salemi & O’Donnell, 1996). On the other hand, John Rawls’ theory of Justice supports the normative notion of ‘equality of opportunities’. Rawls observed a link between his notion of ‘justice as fairness’ and equality of opportunities (Morgan, 2007, xxxvi). The basic notion of his distributive justice states that, “In assignment of benefits and burdens, those who are equal in relevant ways should be treated equally, those who are unequal in relevant ways should be treated unequally in proportion to their inequality” (Rawls, 2009, 47). He claims that self-centred rational individuals would select two common principles of justice to organise society: first is through the ‘difference principle’, which states that economic and social disparities must be structured (Rawls, 2009, 86); and second is through the ‘principle of equal liberty’, which claims that every individual has the same right to the most general freedoms in line with the same freedoms for everyone (Rawls, 2009, 180). Rawls criticises utilitarianism, especially classical utilitarianism, explaining that it “adopt[s] for society as a whole the principle of choice for one man” (Copp, 2001, 163). Thereby, he claims, it is unable to “take seriously the distinction between persons” (Copp, 2001, 163). In contrast, he was largely inspired by the moral philosophy of Kant. He tried to develop Kant’s major arguments. By asserting, as opposed to utilitarianism, the ‘separateness of persons,’ (Rawls, 2009, 167) he continues the concept of veneration for individuals. Hence, equality of opportunities appears to argue about a major aspect of sports competitions—numerous sports competitions disregard equality of outcome, for this would imply that there are several winners. However, sports competitions require the concept of fairness as a core normative system, which can be interpreted as equality of opportunities. Inequality in outcomes is not just accepted but appears to be a basic objective of sports competitions (Tamburrini & Tannsjo, 2002). Hence, guidelines of sports competitions generally will recommend the same tools and conditions for all athletes. Rawls argued that any party who can obtain a huge lead, benefit, or advantage from an imbalance of opportunities will be considered to behave unjustly and largely in violation of the guidelines. If equality of opportunities is absent, it could occur in sports competitions that the top athletes not by capability, training, and talent but by pharmacological conditions will be the champions (Wilson, 2001). And such would imply that competitions are unjust from a basic perspective. Hence the concept of equality is very important in sports competitions—all athletes should have the same rights, and exceptions must not be allowed. Therefore, within the Rawls’ theory of justice, the use of PEDs has a considerable justice-damaging capacity, making the practice unethical. In the meantime, rights are privileges [not] to carry out specific actions. Rights govern contemporary notions of what actions are acceptable and which organisations are fair (Chyka, 2003). A differentiation between positive and negative rights is widespread among several normative thinkers. Those who have a negative right are eligible for non-intervention, whereas those who have a positive right are eligible for delivery of several goods or services. A typical example of a negative right is protection against violence or attack, whereas entitlement to welfare support is a classic positive right (Black, 1996). So, how does this conflict between negative and positive rights can be resolved? This conflict fades in the process of the implementation of rights. Financing a legal institution that carries out the negative rights of the people against violence could necessitate additional resources than financing a welfare programme that performs the people’s positive rights to support (Black, 1996). This is particularly valid in sports competitions. When a person behaves in a manner that gratifies the self to the detriment of other people, the natural law is infringed (Chyka, 2003). For instance, in sport, guidelines are developed so as to make competitions just and equal. Justice is one of the core virtues of the natural law. Since not everyone can be a winner, the lure to be fraudulent, unfair, and offensive is encountered. Although just and even-handed sports competitions are present when all partakers abide by the guidelines, in the end self-interest should be compromised if justice is to be attained (Black, 1996). Many are hesitant to compromise self-interest. Drug use in sports competition to gain bigger advantage is obviously unethical, for it violates the natural law of justice and equality (McNamee, 2014). Normative ethics in sports is, from the philosophical perspective, the focus of descriptive ethics research. Detractors of the use of PEDs in sports purposely normative ethics, suggesting that it is a moral sin; as a result, they are building an ethics standard—a call for the banning of its use—and simultaneously, a sharply unfavourable view; a moral decision of the athlete who, according to them, violates universal and required exercise of the moral principle (Hanstad & Waddington, 2009). However, there is another strand of normative ethics that is more accommodating, that is, ‘relativism’. Normative ethical relativism argues that universally correct moral ideals do not exist. It argues that the moral correctness and incorrectness of behaviours or practices differ from culture to culture. In sum, it argues that all ideas about core moral principles are constantly relative (Eitzen, 1988). Therefore, use of PEDs among athletes may be viewed morally correct by normative ethical relativists. Governance and Practice of Sport Domestically and Internationally Governance of domestic and international sports organisations is vital to the process of guaranteeing the growth of sports compliant with the values and ethics of sport. Due to the function of sport in society to motivate and entertain, the cohesion, reliability, equality, fairness, and transparency of its committees have to be ascertained. Good governance is an essential means to ensure the officials and policies do not begin to compete with other organisations for power (Pound, 2000). The performance of good governance will facilitate the preservation and strengthening of autonomy and integrity of organisations and allow them to keep the autonomy to govern the issues or problems of their region, It appears evident that public policy involvement is decided by the core aspect of sports ethics. It would not seem obvious, for instance, to force the people to act in an ethical way if ethics were not identified or specified thoroughly. International involvement in the kinds of problems and affairs that are talked about in sports ethics also result in the assumption that a more accommodating framework may be more favourable (Pound, 2000). On a global stage, one can refer to the Code of Sports Ethics, implemented by the Council of Europe and UNESCO in 1992. The Code involves guidelines, which suggest that it would be difficult to make rigid and hence less planned, regulations in the form of mandatory commitments (Pappa & Kennedy, 2013). Their theme actually implies universal ethical duties, communicating aspirations or plans instead of rigid legal duties. Such domestic and international code of sports ethics can ensure moral governance and practice in sports competitions. Conclusions The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is currently an ethical dilemma, primarily because of the increasing number of athletes taking the drug. Viewed within the different ethical perspectives, the moral status of the use of PEDs among athletes takes on various forms. If seen within Kantian deontology, Rawls’ theory of justice, and natural rights, drug use in sports is morally problematic or wrong. In contrast, viewed within the utilitarianism and normative ethical relativism perspectives, the use of PEDs among athletes could be morally permissible. Good governance and a well-defined code of ethics could mitigate the risks or ambiguities inherent in drug use in sports. References Berlow, L. (1994). Sports ethics: a reference handbook. Mason, OH: ABC-CLIO. Black, T. (1996). Does the Ban on Drugs in Sport Improve Societal Welfare? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 31(4), 367-381. Boxill, J. (2003). Sports Ethics: An Anthology. New York: Wiley. Chyka, P. (2003). Health Risks of Selected Performance-enhancing Drugs. Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 16(1), 37-44. Copp, D. (2001). Morality, Normativity, and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Eitzen, D. (1988). Ethical Problems in American Sport. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 12(1), 17-30. Hanstad, D. & Waddington, I. (2009). Sport, health and drugs: a critical re-examination of some key issues and problems. Perspectives in Public Health, 129(4), 174-182. McNamee, M. (2014). Sport, Medicine, Ethics. London: Routledge. Moller, V. (2009). The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping: Redeeming the Soul of Sport? London: Routledge. Morgan, W. (2007). Ethics in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Pappa, E. & Kennedy, E. (2013). ‘It was my thought… he made it a reality’: Normalisation and responsibility in athletes’ accounts of performance-enhancing drug use. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(3), 277-294. Pound, R. (2000). Performance-enhancing Drugs in Sport: Response by the International Sports Community. International Journal, 55(3), 485-495. Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press. Salemi, J. & O’Donnell, J. (1996). Performance Enhancing Drug Use in Athletes. Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 9(5), 386-395. Simon, R. (2010). Fair Play: The Ethics of Sport. New York: Westview Press. Tamburrini, C. & Tannsjo, T. (2002). Values in Sport: Elitism, Nationalism, Gender Equality and the Scientific Manufacturing of Winners. London: Taylor & Francis. Thornton, P. et al. (2011). Sports Ethics for Sports Management Professionals. UK: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Wilson, W. (2001). Doping in Elite Sport: The Politics of Drugs in the Olympic Movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Read More