Dispelling a few false-positives: a reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping

Area of Science:

• Sports Ethics
• Moral Philosophy

Background:

• A previous article argued against the moral permissibility of doping in sports.
• McGregor and MacNamee presented criticisms of this argument, focusing on risk, harm management, and methodology.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend the original arguments against doping in sports.
• To address and refute specific criticisms raised by McGregor and MacNamee.

Main Methods:

• Rebuttal of safety-based arguments by clarifying assumptions.
• Analysis of methodological criticisms concerning analogical and revisionist arguments.
• Critique of the underdeveloped nature of alternative views on risk in sports.

Main Results:

• The criticisms regarding safety-based arguments were based on misattributions of intent (harm elimination vs. harm management).
• Methodological criticisms were found to be misplaced, stemming from misinterpretations or overly stringent standards.
• The view that risk profiles alter doping permissibility remains underdeveloped.

Conclusions:

• The original arguments against doping in sports remain robust.
• The criticisms presented by McGregor and MacNamee do not invalidate the core ethical reasoning.
• Further development is needed for nuanced ethical analyses of doping in sports based on risk.