In the article “Ethical and Social Issues in Antidoping Strategies in Sport” by Norman C. Fost, it gives reasons about how the prohibition drugs in athletics have moral principles. Fost is arguing about how prohibiting such drugs is no clear moral principles. I will be analyzing two argument claims in the article of Fost and will also be evaluating Frost’s argument in agreeing with his arguments and reasons.
Fost argues about what things are harmful and explains why it is not a good moral claim reason to prohibit steroids because as Fost also mentions that “two-thirds of premature mortality in the United states is attributed to personal behavior: smoking, heavy drinking, high fat diets, lack of exercise inadequate use of seat belts.” (Fost,481) …show more content…
For example, he says “The majority of professional football players who play for five years or more develop permanent disability.” (Fost, 481) This shows how any type of sports can be dangerous and there is nothing wrong with playing a sport which means there should not be anything wrong with using steroids. Sports can be dangers and can cause serious problems in an athletics because they could harm themselves and be at risk to death and as frost says it not a good moral argument to prohibit steroids. This means that if harmful things is a good moral reason for banning steroids, then we would ban all harmful things. But we do not ban all harmful things. Therefore, harmfulness is not a good moral reason for banning …show more content…
As he mentioned by trying to take advantage to be better than your opponent is not implicitly immoral and this is correct. It is correct because all athletics want to be better than their opponents which are obvious. Athletics don’t want to lose they want to win which they take advantage of training more and practicing to be prepared.
Although in some places they do not have better equipment and coaches to help them which is unfair because other places do have good coaches and better equipment and that is unfair for other athletics. Gaining an advantage over an opponent is not implicitly unfair as the author gave his reason. Even though it is still not a good moral claim to prohibit drugs is not based on apparent moral principles because many have the access to steroids drugs.
In conclusion, based on analyzing and evaluating Fost main argument about the prohibition of drugs is not based on apparent moral principles and I think something needs to be done. I think we should consider more what is harmful and what is not. Also, we should consider that not many places will have the same access to many things but they are many different ways they can take an advantage by having better equipment to prepare, better sports clothes and to train more to have an advantage
Fost argues about what things are harmful and explains why it is not a good moral claim reason to prohibit steroids because as Fost also mentions that “two-thirds of premature mortality in the United states is attributed to personal behavior: smoking, heavy drinking, high fat diets, lack of exercise inadequate use of seat belts.” (Fost,481) …show more content…
For example, he says “The majority of professional football players who play for five years or more develop permanent disability.” (Fost, 481) This shows how any type of sports can be dangerous and there is nothing wrong with playing a sport which means there should not be anything wrong with using steroids. Sports can be dangers and can cause serious problems in an athletics because they could harm themselves and be at risk to death and as frost says it not a good moral argument to prohibit steroids. This means that if harmful things is a good moral reason for banning steroids, then we would ban all harmful things. But we do not ban all harmful things. Therefore, harmfulness is not a good moral reason for banning …show more content…
As he mentioned by trying to take advantage to be better than your opponent is not implicitly immoral and this is correct. It is correct because all athletics want to be better than their opponents which are obvious. Athletics don’t want to lose they want to win which they take advantage of training more and practicing to be prepared.
Although in some places they do not have better equipment and coaches to help them which is unfair because other places do have good coaches and better equipment and that is unfair for other athletics. Gaining an advantage over an opponent is not implicitly unfair as the author gave his reason. Even though it is still not a good moral claim to prohibit drugs is not based on apparent moral principles because many have the access to steroids drugs.
In conclusion, based on analyzing and evaluating Fost main argument about the prohibition of drugs is not based on apparent moral principles and I think something needs to be done. I think we should consider more what is harmful and what is not. Also, we should consider that not many places will have the same access to many things but they are many different ways they can take an advantage by having better equipment to prepare, better sports clothes and to train more to have an advantage