Athletic enhancement and human nature.

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Sport
• Ethics in Competition
• Social Psychology of Performance

Background:

• A notable disparity exists in public and critical reactions to performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports versus other competitive domains.
• Athletic use of PEDs often results in scandal and condemnation, implying enhanced achievements are not seen as genuinely earned.
• Conversely, PEDs in fields like art, science, and business typically elicit no similar negative response.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the justification for the differing ethical judgments of PEDs in sports compared to other competitive activities.
• To explore whether underlying differences in the nature or value of these activities account for the disparity in reactions to PED use.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of ethical justifications for stigmatizing PEDs in sports.
• Comparison of judgments regarding superhuman versus human participation in sports and other activities.
• Examination of the role of the 'human element' in valuing athletic performance versus achievements in other fields.

Main Results:

• Potential justifications for the disanalogy in PED judgment were surveyed and found lacking.
• The human status of athletes is identified as crucial to the perceived value of sports and effort, unlike in other endeavors.
• This difference in the value attributed to human effort in sports, compared to other activities, justifies the differing judgments on PED use.

Conclusions:

• The disanalogy in judging PEDs is justified by the unique value placed on human effort and achievement in sports.
• The 'human element' is central to sports, making PED use a violation of its core values, a consideration less relevant in other fields.
• Further assumptions are needed to fully align the 'humanity' argument with varying judgments on PEDs across all contexts.