Ethical Aspects of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports - Coursework Example

Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement Drugs in Sports Name Institution Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement Drugs in Sports Introduction: The value of ethics in sports draws from their societal relevance as a necessary activity that allows for a special form of interaction among humans of different kinds and from different places. The passage of time has witnessed the conversion of sports into highly competitive and lucrative ventures that pit wealthy teams and talented players against each other. Organizations such as FIFA and other associations evolved with the objective of managing sports along various laws and regulations, which govern the sporting activities. As such, the entrenchment of laws in the field of sports implies that discipline, morality, and ethics are required for a harmonious performance and participation in the sports activities (Mottram, 2005). Ethics are central in ensuring that participants in the sporting activities behave in ways that promote and sustain the sporting activities along the rules of fairness and order. Ethics constitutes the regulating force that influences the conduct of sports people as understood in the context of performance enhancement drugs (Waddington & Smith, 2009). Utilitarianism: In broad terms, the application of utilitarianism on the subject of performance enhancement drugs should begin with the understanding of the nature and practice of this ethical perspective. The meaning of utilitarianism connects with the pursuit of the greatest good for the purpose of benefitting the greatest number within the longest time possible (Waddington & Smith, 2013). On a more specific angle, utilitarianism splits into the two categories of act utilitarianism as most common and rule utilitarianism, which requires some depth of analysis and philosophical practice. In the context of sports, both types of utilitarianism could apply in the establishment of meaning and value within the context of norms and professional requirements. The competitive nature of sports requires a significant element of fairness and honesty on the part of the participants. These requirements play the important role of sustaining the essence of sports as required by rules of professionalism in the field of sports. The use of the enhancement drugs gives the user an unfair advantage over other participants (Derse & Wilson, 2001). These drugs make the body to perform beyond its natural limits. Nearly all athletic bodies in the world prohibit the use of these drugs. Players found doping often face severe punishments and the stripping of any titles that they received in the past (Pound, 2010). In many ways, performance enhancement drugs help the participants win and earn recognition, money, and other advantages that come with such achievements. However, these advantages usually deprive many other deserving athletes of their rightful places in the competition. The benefits of the illegal use of these drugs are only limited to the interests of one individual. Many other players suffer the unintended consequence of the single participant. In essence, the use of the enhancement drugs goes against the interests of many. The implied meaning of such a trend is that the majority suffer because of the actions of one person. Act utilitarianism provides that an action shall be considered as ethical only when its consequences benefit a majority of people within and serve the greater good. As such, the ethical angle of act utilitarianism falls apart the moment an athlete decides to gain a competitive advantage over others by the use of enhancement drugs (Pound, 2010). In the context of rule utilitarianism, athletes should only act in a manner that would uphold their actions as a universal rule for others. In practice, it remains inconceivable to consider the use of enhancement drugs as some form of a maxim that regulates the conduct of other players. The sporting world could be rendered into disorder in the event of the application of drug enhancement by all the players as a universal rule (Cooper, 2012). Essentially, the use of these drugs cannot find any structural support on the basis of utilitarianism. The practice violates all utilitarian tenets. Kantianism: Any consideration of ethical laws in the context of Kantianism should focus on the elements of good will and moral law as the twin factors on which such a perspective focuses. Kantianism operates along multiple factors that engage with the requirement for the pursuit of moral law (Betzler, 2008). All actions are reducible to the two dimensions of ethical or unethical if considered along the element of moral laws as the unifying principle. Moral laws derive their legitimacy from various aspects of the society, which articulate perspectives of right and wrong in accordance with a specific universal code that determines the shape of morality. The use of different types of enhancement drugs in sports derives from a desire to appeal to some irregular force that has the power to change the patterns of performance in an immoral manner (Dimeo, 2008). The agent of such an action should face close scrutiny in order to establish whether any element of good will guided the actions of their character. From an objective point of analysis, the use of performance enhancement drugs does not come with any element of good will on the part of the actors. The necessity of all action should originate from the capacity of the actors to articulate the moral concerns of the society from the perspective of honesty and fairness. Such qualities are uniquely absent in any action that falls outside the requirements of the law. The illegality and negative motives of the use of these enhancements illustrate the absence of goodwill on the part of the agent. In fact, an action cannot meet the requirements of morality if it transgresses against the established law. Goodwill manifests itself in the background of the societal laws. As such, the various matters that connect with the pursuit of morality should only work within the elements of virtue and morality. All these attributes lack in the intentions and consequences of enhancement drugs as understood on the score of morality (Morgan, 2007). Kantianism recognizes ethical and moral actions in terms of the intention to embrace the element of duty to the moral laws of the society. On this account, the use of illegal substances to enhance performance in the field of sports requires some close assessment in line with the place of duty within the entire scheme of things. The use of the performance enhancement substances ignores all forms of duty from moral laws. In fact, such an action only promotes adverse traits that fall outside the tenets of morality. Moral laws are diametrically opposed to unfairness and dishonesty. In this regard, the use of these substances only subtracts from the central obligation of pursuing the moral laws of the society. Essentially, the element of duty requires that sports people connect their actions to the local and international laws, which determine the manner in which actions and motives connect to the dominant laws of the sporting society. In a matter of fact, the representation of goodwill must show in the intentions of the sports people to behave in accordance with the rules governing the use of enhancement substances (Monroe, 2004). Rawl’s Principle of Distributive Justice: The connection between Rawl’s principle of distributive justice and the use of performance enhancement substances begins with the recognition of the main factors that define the idea of universal justice. The first part of such a task should engage with the suggested recognition between the virtues of equality and liberty. Rawl’s proposed a focus on the specific situations of justice and the opportunities for making fair choices with regard to such circumstances. The unique position suggested in the principle also establishes a delicate balance between egoism and altruism. From a closer position, the principle of distributive justice implies some customized approaches to knowledge. However, the position lays significant emphasis on the rules of fairness. Such fairness should be mutually agreed among the participants. As such, judging the use of these substances should connect with the complexity of the situation. It is not possible to determine any mutual gains that originate out of the use of performance enhancement substances in sports. Athletes, footballers, or cyclists who choose to use performance enhancement drugs only make it complex for other participants to benefit from the fair rules of the competition (Robinson & Epshteyn, 2009). As such, the element of mutual lacks in the whole matter. Similarly, there is no application of mutual consideration because the results only promise short-term rewards to the agent. The lack of any mutual advantages in the use of the enhancement drugs implies that the matter or action cannot reconcile with the specific details on the ethical dimensions as spelled out in the principle of distributive justice. There is some aspect of meanness, which conditions the motives of the drug users because the ends they seek are essentially selfish. The major factor that connects with usage of these substances works together with the fact that deviants want to use illegal means to their advantages. Distributive justice works in patterns, which entail some aspect of balance between altruism and egoism. Ethical actions are supposed to challenge the foundations of altruism. This is because the owner seeks to benefit and serve some measure of private interest. The element of justice only operates when the agent strikes a balance between personal benefits and the benefit of others around them. The use of drugs to enhance performance in sports only serves the limited interests of the user without regard to the interests of the others (Robinson & Epshteyn, 2009). The justice that the users seek only serves their limited interests. Therefore, the actions of the drug users in the sporting world fall below the prescriptions of distributive justice. Rights: In the historical course of sports development, groups and individuals have sought ways and strategies to enhance their performance and increase opportunities of winning. Many sports scientists and analysts agree that sports attract high levels of interest because of the lucrative nature of modern sports. Significant changes in the levels of sports rewards and benefits began in the twentieth century towards the twenty first century. High remunerations and luxurious lifestyles have become the defining features of modern sports. Most of these changes have occurred in the fields of soccer, basketball, tennis, rugby, athletics, and many other types of sports. The monetary and material attractions have increased the stakes of sports competition and encourage some athletes to embrace the use of performance of enhancement drugs in the pursuit of easy success (O’Leary, 2013). Various analyses have shown an increasing reliance on performance enhancement in nearly every form of sport. Various ethical perspectives have attended on the subject of increased reliance on different types of performance enhancement drugs. A close assessment of the merits and adverse effects of performance enhancement drugs shows variations in the ethical dimensions along the lines of utilitarianism and Kantianism. Other studies have attempted to study this subject under Rawl’s theory of distributive justice while other examined the matter from a rights perspective. The different positions tend to focus on the motives and consequences of these drugs in terms of the combined effects of the drugs on sports performance and the sustainability of the practice. Applying ethics to the field of sports requires an assessment of the meaning of sports in societies and the place of merit and morality in the pursuit of the established meanings and objectives. Governance and Practice of Sports: A noticeable transformation in the governance and practice of sports in the world began to take shape in the twentieth century. Before the transformations, the sporting world was defined by splits and fragmented units, which worked towards the pursuit of narrow objectives (Monroe, 2004). Much of the emphasis was at the local level as the world has not advanced significantly on the score of integration. As such, the international performances and participations were limited to a few major events such as the FIFA World Cup. However, the age of globalization and the advantages of development enabled the widening of international relations in areas such as sports. As such, new federations and cooperation have increased in the sporting fraternity. The governance of sports has equally shifted from a past, which was dominated by governmental control to a present age of private initiatives and corporate sponsorships (Monroe, 2004). These changes have allowed greater participation and widened chances for individuals, groups, and societies. The loosening of restrictions has also allowed for the emergence of corporate management of sports. The modern world recognizes sports in multiple meanings that include investment and entertainment. Many dynamic approaches have emerged leading to the significant rises in the levels of investment and the creation of universal laws to govern the conduct and nature of sports. Nevertheless, the world continues to experience some challenges in the management of certain elements of sports. The Inadequacy of Ethical Relativism: Ethical relativism anchors on the assumptions of the world as a practically diverse space in which actions take place in accordance to contexts, preferences, customs, and other peculiar distinctions between people, groups, individuals, or cultures. The world of sports continues to operate in ways that signal increased integrations, merges, and global cooperation (Monroe, 2004). The global unity in the field of sports has become more realistic with the advantages of globalization and the growing forces of liberalization. Ethical relativism cannot apply in a global situation that embraces the tenets of pluralism. In many ways, the expression of ethical relativism requires the fragmentation of the world into distinct groups and pockets of interests. Such a reality cannot obtain within a highly universalized environment. Therefore, the application of ethical relativism collapses when measured against the emerging realities of globalization. The current situation only calls for universal approaches on matters of ethics as understood within the sporting context. References Betzler, M. (2008). Kant's Ethics of Virtue. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Cooper, C. E. (2012). Run, swim, throw, cheat: The science behind drugs in sport. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derse, E., & Wilson, W. (2001). Doping in elite sport: The politics of drugs in the Olympic movement. Champaign: Human Kinetics. Dimeo, P. (2008). Drugs and Sport: Beyond Good and Evil. London: Routledge. Monroe, J. (2004). Steroids, sports, and body image: The risks of performance-enhancing drugs. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers. Morgan, W. J. (2007). Ethics in sport. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics. Mottram, D., R. (2005). Drugs in Sport. London: Routledge. O’Leary, J. (2013). Drugs & Doping in Sports. London: Routledge. Pound, R., W. (2010). Inside Dope: How Drugs Are the Biggest Threat to Sports, Why You Should Care, and What Can Be Done About Them. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Robinson, T., & Epshteyn, M. G. (2009). Performance-enhancing drugs. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. Co. Waddington, I. & Smith, A. (2013). Sport, Health and Drugs: A Critical Sociological Perspective. London: Routledge. Waddington, I., & Smith, A. (2009). An Introduction to Drugs in Sport: Addicted to Winning? London: Routledge. Read More

The benefits of the illegal use of these drugs are only limited to the interests of one individual. Many other players suffer the unintended consequence of the single participant. In essence, the use of the enhancement drugs goes against the interests of many. The implied meaning of such a trend is that the majority suffer because of the actions of one person. Act utilitarianism provides that an action shall be considered as ethical only when its consequences benefit a majority of people within and serve the greater good.

As such, the ethical angle of act utilitarianism falls apart the moment an athlete decides to gain a competitive advantage over others by the use of enhancement drugs (Pound, 2010). In the context of rule utilitarianism, athletes should only act in a manner that would uphold their actions as a universal rule for others. In practice, it remains inconceivable to consider the use of enhancement drugs as some form of a maxim that regulates the conduct of other players. The sporting world could be rendered into disorder in the event of the application of drug enhancement by all the players as a universal rule (Cooper, 2012).

Essentially, the use of these drugs cannot find any structural support on the basis of utilitarianism. The practice violates all utilitarian tenets. Kantianism: Any consideration of ethical laws in the context of Kantianism should focus on the elements of good will and moral law as the twin factors on which such a perspective focuses. Kantianism operates along multiple factors that engage with the requirement for the pursuit of moral law (Betzler, 2008). All actions are reducible to the two dimensions of ethical or unethical if considered along the element of moral laws as the unifying principle.

Moral laws derive their legitimacy from various aspects of the society, which articulate perspectives of right and wrong in accordance with a specific universal code that determines the shape of morality. The use of different types of enhancement drugs in sports derives from a desire to appeal to some irregular force that has the power to change the patterns of performance in an immoral manner (Dimeo, 2008). The agent of such an action should face close scrutiny in order to establish whether any element of good will guided the actions of their character.

From an objective point of analysis, the use of performance enhancement drugs does not come with any element of good will on the part of the actors. The necessity of all action should originate from the capacity of the actors to articulate the moral concerns of the society from the perspective of honesty and fairness. Such qualities are uniquely absent in any action that falls outside the requirements of the law. The illegality and negative motives of the use of these enhancements illustrate the absence of goodwill on the part of the agent.

In fact, an action cannot meet the requirements of morality if it transgresses against the established law. Goodwill manifests itself in the background of the societal laws. As such, the various matters that connect with the pursuit of morality should only work within the elements of virtue and morality. All these attributes lack in the intentions and consequences of enhancement drugs as understood on the score of morality (Morgan, 2007). Kantianism recognizes ethical and moral actions in terms of the intention to embrace the element of duty to the moral laws of the society.

On this account, the use of illegal substances to enhance performance in the field of sports requires some close assessment in line with the place of duty within the entire scheme of things. The use of the performance enhancement substances ignores all forms of duty from moral laws. In fact, such an action only promotes adverse traits that fall outside the tenets of morality. Moral laws are diametrically opposed to unfairness and dishonesty. In this regard, the use of these substances only subtracts from the central obligation of pursuing the moral laws of the society.

Read More