The Use of Doping in Sports - Coursework Example

Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Name Institution Date Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Introduction The use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is commonly referred to as doping. The use of such drugs enhances the abilities of the competitors and hence giving them undue advantage over the other competitors. This leads to unfairness in the regulated sports as it is against the spirit of competition. In sports, no participant is supposed to have a competitive advantage over the others and hence the ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in regulated sports. Several organizations in charge of different sports have come out to condemn the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. The international Olympics committee is one of the international organizations that are against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. World Anti Doping Agency is also an internal organization that monitors the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports and it has come up with a list of drugs that should not be used in sports (Butschle, 2013). The use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is also a matter of ethics since it leads to unfairness. However, it is also important to note that the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports has negative health impacts and it may lead to sudden deaths. The paper discusses the ethical issues in relation to the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Ethical theories Utilitarianism According to the concepts of utilitarianism, what one does should be considered good or bad depending on how it affects the other people. However, this theory also recognizes the importance of self interest as everyone intends to achieve certain goals and objectives (Hayry, 2013). In the case of sports, using the performance enhancing drugs leads to a good performance by the sports person. This is because the sports personnel using the performance enhancing givers the user a competitive advantage. This means that the user may end up wining the competition and hence advancing their own self interest of wining the competition. However, this has a negative impact on the other competitors. This is because it denies them an equal opportunity to compete as they are at a disadvantage. This therefore means that the person using the drug impacts negatively on the other competitors not using the drugs and hence making the practice unethical according to the theory of utilitarianism. According to the utilitarianism principles, it is important for the individuals to do the most in order to maximize utility. On the other hand, setting aside personal interest is also an important concept of utilinitarianism. The interest of every person counts according to the theory but the theory is not committed to the individual interest as the common good is the main interests (Smart, 2012). Sportsmen using the performance enhancing drugs are only concerned about their interest as they intend to gain a competitive advantage over the others. The use of the performance enhancing drugs is not for the common good but it is for the purpose of advancing the self interest this is therefore an indication that the use of the performance enhancing drugs is against the ethics in accordance to the theory of utilitarianism. The use of the performance enhancing drugs also has negative consequences to both e users in terms of their health and the others in terms of competition. Kantian deontology According to the Kantian deontology, moral life is usually centered on duty. Duty is internal and we impose duty on ourselves. This is opposed to following orders or inclinations. The right action must always be possible and it is purely based on reason as opposed to utility (Reidenbach, 2013). In the case of using the performance enhancing drugs in sports, it is unreasonable to use the drugs for the purposes of gaining competitive advantage over the other competitors. It is the duty of the sportsmen to ensure that they don not perform actions that will give them a competitive advantage over the others. This is because the sportsmen using the performance enhancing drugs are fully aware of their actions ad its impacts. Their actions may also amount to negligence of duty to free will. This is because they choose to do the wrong thing by engaging in cheating through the use of the performance enhancing drugs. This therefore indicates that it is not ethical for the performance enhancing drugs to be used in sports as it is morally wrong. According to Kant deontology theory, an action is morally right if a person performing the action is also willing to accept other people to perform the same action. The theory further explains that it is unethical for a person to exempt himself or herself from the moral laws without granting the same privilege to the others (Hobson, 2011). The sports people using the performance enhancing drugs may not be willing to accept the other competitors to use the performance enhancing drugs. This is because they will be at a disadvantage. It is for the reason of gaining competitive advantage that the people use performance enhancing drugs in sports. This is therefore an indication that the use of the performance enhancing drugs is morally wrong. Rawls’ theory of justice According to Rawls’ theory of justice, an underserved inequality calls for redress. The principles of distributive justice are also applicable in the theory through universal, respect for all and rationally acceptable to all (Williamson, 2012). In the case of using performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports, underserved inequalities is created. This is because the sports people using the performance enhancement drugs gains more competitive advantage as compared to those who do not use. This is situation is unjust and it requires redress. On the other hand, the use of performance enhancing drugs is not acceptable universally and it is not involve the concepts of respects for all. This also indicates that the use of the performance enhancing drugs in sports is not just and hence unethical in sports. Since the undeserved inequalities are created by the practice, the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is not ethical and kit cannot be justified. According to Rawls’ theory of justice, inequality in the social primary goods is to be allowed only when it benefits everyone. On the other hand, fair equality in terms of opportunity for everyone is important as everyone deserves an equal share (O'neill, 2010). The use of performance enhancing drugs in sports does not benefit everyone inn the competition. Only the people using the performance enhancing drugs during the competition benefit. This is not juts according to the theory and it means that the use of the performance enhancing drugs in sports is not ethical. The principles of equality are also ignored when other sports people use drugs in order to enhance their performance. This is also not justified and it is thus unethical in accordance to Rawls’ theory. In sports, everyone competing must have equal opportunity and no one should have competitive advantage over the others as it is unethical in accordance to the theory. Rights A right is something that one is entitled to when they want. It is also something that a person chooses to exercise if the want to. However, despite the rights that people are entitled, there are positive as well as negative rights. The rights also have limitations that for the purposes of ensuring that everyone enjoys equal rights (Carmalt, 2011). In the case of using performance enhancing drugs in sports, every sportsman has the right to win the competition. Wining the competition requires the competitors to perform different tasks for the purposes of ensuring that they are able to compete effectively. The competitors therefore have a right to use the performance enhancing drugs for the purposes of boosting their abilities to compete. However, this right interferes with the rights of the other competitors in terms of equality and hence making the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports to be unethical. When the rights of the others are interfered with, the process becomes unethical. According to the theory, not all the positive rights claim are reasonable. It is for this reason that the rights have to be subjected to the legitimate foundations. This is for the purposes of ensuring that the rights of the other people are not interfered with. The concepts of just distribution of benefits and burden should also be considered when dealing with rights (Rothhaar, 2010). In the case of sports, the right to use performance enhancing drugs only benefits the people using it while it puts the rest of the competitors at a disadvantage. This means that the rights of using the performance of performance enhancing drugs do not meet the fundamentals of the legitimate foundations. The rights of the other competitors are interfered with in terms of equality. This is because the competitors are not subjected to equal treatment and hence impacting negatively on the spirit of competition. This is an indication that the practice is not ethical. The challenge of normative ethical relativism According to the normative ethical relativism, what is good is socially acceptable and what is bad is socially unacceptable. However, the theory limits this to a particular culture or society. On the other hand, the theory argues that universal truth in ethics does not exist. This is because an issue or practice may be good in one society and bad in the other society. In the case of using the performance enhancing drugs in sports, not everyone agrees that it is bad to use them. This is considering that a competition is about wining and any competitor should use any necessary means to win the competition. Since there is a division on whether the use of the performance enhancing drugs is ethical or not, the theory presents a challenge. According to this theory, the use of performance enhancing drugs is not entirely unethical and it is dependent on the views of the society where it is used. Rights and wrongs are also a matter of opinion according to the theory which indicates that the use of the performance enhancing drugs cannot be entirely justified. The theory further argues that there is no universal standard that can be used for the purpose of measuring morality (Hinman, 2011). The need for tolerance and diversity is important to the society in order to avoid making wrong conclusions regarding certain practices. This means that relativism presents a mixed view with regards to the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is because it neither supports it neither does it Condon it. This is because it suggests that there is no universal standard for measuring morality which may lead to unfair judgment. Conclusion In conclusion, it is apparent that different ethical theories have different perspectives of how ethics should be measured in relation to different practices. The use of performance enhancing drugs gives undue advantage to the users and hence impacting negatively on the competition. Most of the ethical theories support this view meaning that it is not ethical to use the performance enhancing drugs in sports. It is also evident that the theory of relativism does not fully support this view as it suggest that what is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. This indicates that the use of performance enhancing drugs should be critically analyzed. The governance of sports both domestically and internationally has been improved through the use of the ethical concepts. This is because ethics plays an essential role in ensuring that the sports competitions are free and fair. The governance of sports at the international level has put in place measures to ensure that the competitors do not gain competitive advantage over the others due to the use of the performance enhancing drugs. Although the ethical issues are responsible for the ban of use of performance enhancing drugs in the regulated sports, health issues are also considered. The governance of sports both domestically and locally is also in line with the ethical considerations which ensure that the equal opportunity is created during the competition. However, more efforts are required both domestically and internationally for the purposes of ensuring that no competitors have undue advantage over the others in sports. References Butschle, M. (2013). To that end, players who use steroids not only hurt themselves, they put the athletes who do not use them at an unfair disadvantage. American Literature. Carmalt, J. C. (2011). Human rights, care ethics and situated universal norms. Antipode, 43(2), 296-325. Hayry, M. (2013). Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. London: Routledge. Hinman, L. M. (2011). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Cengage Learning. Hobson, A. A. (2011). Locked-in syndrome with no advance directives: An ethical analysis of the plan of care. Rush University. O'neill, O. (2010). The Idea of Justice. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(7), 384-388. Reidenbach, R. (2013). Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics. In Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 45-67). Springer Netherlands. Rothhaar, M. (2010). Medicine, human rights and ethics: paths to universal rights. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 13(3), 247-249. Smart, J. J. C. (2012). Extreme and restricted utilitarianism. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 423. York. Williamson, T. (2012). Property-owning Democracy: Rawls and beyond. NewJohn Wiley & Sons. Read More

The use of the performance enhancing drugs is not for the common good but it is for the purpose of advancing the self interest this is therefore an indication that the use of the performance enhancing drugs is against the ethics in accordance to the theory of utilitarianism. The use of the performance enhancing drugs also has negative consequences to both e users in terms of their health and the others in terms of competition. Kantian deontology According to the Kantian deontology, moral life is usually centered on duty.

Duty is internal and we impose duty on ourselves. This is opposed to following orders or inclinations. The right action must always be possible and it is purely based on reason as opposed to utility (Reidenbach, 2013). In the case of using the performance enhancing drugs in sports, it is unreasonable to use the drugs for the purposes of gaining competitive advantage over the other competitors. It is the duty of the sportsmen to ensure that they don not perform actions that will give them a competitive advantage over the others.

This is because the sportsmen using the performance enhancing drugs are fully aware of their actions ad its impacts. Their actions may also amount to negligence of duty to free will. This is because they choose to do the wrong thing by engaging in cheating through the use of the performance enhancing drugs. This therefore indicates that it is not ethical for the performance enhancing drugs to be used in sports as it is morally wrong. According to Kant deontology theory, an action is morally right if a person performing the action is also willing to accept other people to perform the same action.

The theory further explains that it is unethical for a person to exempt himself or herself from the moral laws without granting the same privilege to the others (Hobson, 2011). The sports people using the performance enhancing drugs may not be willing to accept the other competitors to use the performance enhancing drugs. This is because they will be at a disadvantage. It is for the reason of gaining competitive advantage that the people use performance enhancing drugs in sports. This is therefore an indication that the use of the performance enhancing drugs is morally wrong.

Rawls’ theory of justice According to Rawls’ theory of justice, an underserved inequality calls for redress. The principles of distributive justice are also applicable in the theory through universal, respect for all and rationally acceptable to all (Williamson, 2012). In the case of using performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports, underserved inequalities is created. This is because the sports people using the performance enhancement drugs gains more competitive advantage as compared to those who do not use.

This is situation is unjust and it requires redress. On the other hand, the use of performance enhancing drugs is not acceptable universally and it is not involve the concepts of respects for all. This also indicates that the use of the performance enhancing drugs in sports is not just and hence unethical in sports. Since the undeserved inequalities are created by the practice, the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is not ethical and kit cannot be justified. According to Rawls’ theory of justice, inequality in the social primary goods is to be allowed only when it benefits everyone.

On the other hand, fair equality in terms of opportunity for everyone is important as everyone deserves an equal share (O'neill, 2010). The use of performance enhancing drugs in sports does not benefit everyone inn the competition. Only the people using the performance enhancing drugs during the competition benefit. This is not juts according to the theory and it means that the use of the performance enhancing drugs in sports is not ethical. The principles of equality are also ignored when other sports people use drugs in order to enhance their performance.

This is also not justified and it is thus unethical in accordance to Rawls’ theory.

Read More