For decades, Americans have relentlessly pursued the dream of success and celebrity. Moreover, these dreams are often achieved and sometimes exceeded by means of dishonesty; but at what cost. Lance Armstrong was an American cyclist who consecutively won major sporting events, became extremely popular, and established the Livestrong Foundation: an aid organization responsible for raising over a half of billion dollars, which was dedicated to cancer research and direct support services for individuals afflicted with the disease. The sadness, Loss of life, and wide spread of the disease must cease. Subsequently, the US Anti-doping agency determined that Mr. Armstrong consumed performance enhancing drugs to win many these very sporting events over the seven years of his winning streak; basically, he cheated and was stripped of any medals or awards. In this paper, I will discuss Lance’s decision to cheat from the perspective of the Virtue Theory, Kantian Ethics, and Utilitarianism. Every action in life has its purpose, it’s up to us as to find its meaning.
The Virtue Theory relies on the premise that personal character traits of a person are paramount concerning actions, right or
…show more content…
Deontologist believe, for the most part, “that our moral obligations- whatever they are- are in some sense or to some degree independent of consequences” (LaFollette 9). Basically, if one’s moral obligations were not to cheat, though the best outcome will be achieved, he or she shouldn’t cheat even though they may fail without doing so. The Overall outcome may result in getting caught and being disqualified. In other words, Mr. Armstrong’s decision to cheat broke Kant’s ethical guideline, regardless of his contributions or success thereafter. Morally, cheating is wrong, it’s a deception of one’s self and
The Notorious Olympian Marion Jones was a highly decorated American track and field athlete, known for her speed and success in sprinting and jumping events. However, her career took a sharp turn when she became embroiled in a doping scandal involving steroids. In his article, A Tarnished Marion Jones Couldn't Outrun (2007) Author Harvey Araton claims Marion Jones' doping scandal and subsequent downfall serve as a cautionary tale about the perils of cheating in sports. In view of the author's opinionative tone, this article is intended for those who are interested in sports, PEDs, and Olympic scandals, ranging from ages between 16 and 55; these are the people who perceive fairness within sports as a grave issue.
Throughout chapters ten and eleven of Introduction to the Philosophy of Sport, Heather L. Reid addresses the many issues that arise between the relationship between virtues and sports. In particular, Reid states, “It is characteristic of sport that we want to know not just who won but also whether they deserved to win” (Reid, 140). The emphasis on the “deserving” to win closely ties with ethics, assuming that only virtuous people “deserve” to win. What grabbed my attention even more was Reid’s next statement regarding immoral actions that occur outside of the arena of sport: “The detection and punishment of cheaters is (at least presented as) a priority, and even immoral actions that have nothing to do with sport can tarnish an athlete’s image and detract from his or her results” (Reid, 140). I agree with Reid’s proposal that an athlete’s reputation can easily be affected by actions irrelevant to his or his sport.
Chivalry versus Morality: Why Lancelot’s Compromised Morality Disproves His Heroic Status According to chivalry, the ideal twelfth century knight should have upheld the values of Chretien de Troye’s The Knight of the Cart – honor, fidelity, and the drive to protect and serve the helpless. For example, “if a knight encountered a damsel or girl alone – be she lady or maidserant – he would as soon cut his throat as treat her dishonorably, if he prized his good name [emphasis mine]” (223). The fault lies in that statement, rephrased and added as a qualifier to the courtly standards mentioned throughout the story: the purpose of chivalry, above all, was to ensure that the knight maintained a reputation that was above reproach.
This picture contends, how lance Armstrong looks when he is off drugs. The pump represents drugs and it shows that if lance Armstrong has no drugs on him, he won’t perform as well and get an advantage over other competitors. The illustrator has used Exaggeration in this cartoon. It’s not possible for a human body to be deflated which draws the audience in, due to the fact that he is pumping ‘Truth’ into himself. The illustrator has also used a visual metaphor.
Most Athletes Do Drugs, But Who Really Cares Athletes using performance enhancing drugs have always been in the media. When a beloved athlete is caught using drugs the media tears them apart. Any one’s favorite athlete could become nothing to them after a drug test. The articles “Cheating and CHEATING” by Joe Posnasnski and “We, the Public, Place the Best Athletes on Pedestals” by William Moller, show two sides of the effects of media as well as fame for athletes. As mentioned, “Cheating and CHEATING” by Posnanski gives its own side to the effects of media.
Sports writer David Walsh (Chris O'Dowd) attempts to expose Lance Armstrong's (Ben Foster) drugging scheme over the development of his astonishingly fruitful supremacy as the world's supreme popular sportsperson. Frears surveys in almost-forensic element the progression by which Lance Armstrong, conceivably the prominent drug cheater sport has identified, chemically contrived his personal and his US Postal Service team’s performance. But Frears’ long-delayed feature (formerly called Icon) is ultimately unbalanced, captivatingly resolute in the set-up but absent to make an immediate urgency for the exit as it smashes off trajectory in the last half-hour. Ben Foster distributes a jaw-clenched presentation which makes it vibrant why Armstrong
Historical Over the centuries of Olympic Games and high performance sporting events there has been many cases of doping, but there has been none as long running and well-hidden as Lance Armstrong’s doping case which has had a major impact on drug in sport. Lance Armstrong was seen as the world’s best road cyclist, winning the Tour De France seven consecutive times from 1999-2005. However from his first win in 1999 there had been allegations that he was using drugs to enhance his perform and win the Tour De France, but every one of these allegations was denied with Lance Armstrong saying that “He (Michael Ferrari, his training at the time) had never suggested, prescribed or provided me with any performance-enhancing drugs.” (18) His training
Dr. LIncoln Allison argues that in truth, steroids are not really “cheating”, they are just a way to bring out the full ability from a player. “A sportsman or woman who seeks an advantage from drugs just moves up to the level appropriate to his or her underlying ability”(107). She suggests that we deal with other, much greater problems, before worrying about teroid issue, ”In general, the risk to health from performance-enhancing drugs is considerably less than that from tobacco or alcohol, and we ought not to apply paternalistic moral assumptions to sport that we are not prepared to apply to the rest of
When an athlete performs extremely well at the Olympics many fans then start to become suspicious on whether or not that athlete is on some type of drug. In the following readings, “A Shot in the Rear: Why Are We Really against Steroids?” by L. Caplan, “The Science of Doping”, by Christie Ashwanden, “Genetically Modified Athletes” by John Naish, and “When Winning Costs Too Much” by John McCloskey,
To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
In the Great Gatsby by F Scott. Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald uses Jordan Baker's deceitful behavior on the golf course and as well as her cynical attitude towards life, to show not only how success always comes with a price, but also the moral boundaries that people are willing to push and overlook for their own personal success. Jordan’s cynical attitude allows her to think and act differently than others. Where many people find cheating and deception utterly unacceptable, Jordan sees it as a way of life. “Jordan Baker instinctively avoided clever, shrewd men, and ... this was because she felt safer on a plane where any divergence from a code would be thought impossible” (Fitzgerald 57-58).
As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty. The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty.
AS91101 - 2.4 Writing Portfolio Piece Two - Cooper Title: Drugs in sports Drugs have become an integral part of any modern day sporting event. Drugs give an unfair advantage to the user and the competitors that are using enhancements are not using their own full abilities to win the Olympic medal or championship. This makes it unfair to other competitors that are not using a drug or other enhancements to compete. Athletes like Lance Armstrong and Nadzeya Ostapchuk not only give sportsmen and women a bad reputation but influence the way the public think about sports and run the risk of addiction and long-term health issues.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics differs from other moral theories. Unlike deontology and consequentialism, virtue ethics emphasizes and describes moral characters (virtues). In my paper, I am going to explore the objection to virtue ethics from a relativist point of view and the responses to this objection that were presented in Nussbaum’s paper “A non-relative approach to virtue ethics.” Furthermore, I am going to present two out of three relativist objections to her responses that she anticipated, and her responses to them.