Philosophy on steroids: A reply
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31 (6):401-410 (2010)
| Abstract | Brent Kious has recently attacked several arguments generally adduced to support anti-doping in sports, which are widely supported by the sports medicine fraternity, international sports federations, and international governments. We show that his attack does not succeed for a variety of reasons. First, it uses an overly inclusive definition of doping at odds with the WADA definition, which has global, if somewhat contentious, currency. Second, it seriously misconstrues the position it attacks, rendering the attack without force against a more balanced construal of an anti-doping position. Third, it makes unwarranted appeals to matters Kious considers morally ‘clear’, while simultaneously attacking a position many others take to be equally morally ‘clear’, namely that of anti-doping. Such an inconsistency, attacking and appealing to the moral status quo as befits one’s argument, is not acceptable without further qualification. Fourth, his position suffers from a general methodological flaw of over-reliance upon argumentation by analogy. Moreover, it is argued that the analogies, being poorly selected and developed, fail to justify his conclusion that the anti-doping lobby lacks philosophical and moral authority for its stance. These issues are symptomatic of a more fundamental problem: any attempt at providing a blanket solution to the question of whether doping is morally acceptable or not is bound to run up against problems when applied to highly specific contexts. Thus, rather than reaching any particular conclusion for or against doping products or processes in this article, we conclude that an increased context-sensitivity will result in a more evenhanded appraisal of arguments on the matter | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBrent M. Kious (2008). Philosophy on Steroids: Why the Anti-Doping Position Could Use a Little Enhancement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (4):213-234.
Oskar MacGregor & Mike McNamee (2011). Harm, Risk, and Doping Analogies: A Counter-Response to Kious. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):201-207.
Søren Holm (2007). Doping Under Medical Control - Conceptually Possible but Impossible in the World of Professional Sports? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):135 – 145.
Bengt Kayser, Alexandre Mauron & Andy Miah (2007). Current Anti-Doping Policy: A Critical Appraisal. BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-10.
Andy Miah (2007). Genetics, Bioethics and Sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):146 – 158.
Brent Michael Kious (2011). Dispelling a Few False-Positives: A Reply to MacGregor and McNamee on Doping. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):195-200.
John Gleaves (2011). The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping: Redeeming the Soul of Sport? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 5 (1):75-78.
Mike McNamee (2007). Doping in Sports: Old Problem, New Faces. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (3):263 – 265.
Lev Kreft (2009). The Elite Athlete - In a State of Exception? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 3 (1):3-18.
Eric Chwang (2011). Why Athletic Doping Should Be Banned. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (1):33-49.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-17Total downloads13 ( #87,888 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
