Andrew Hebert PEDs and Morality Performance enhancing drugs are extremely commonplace in sports. Would it be morally correct to legalize performance enhancing drugs in professional sports? Using virtue ethics, it would be morally correct to legalize performance enhancing drugs, however, if using rule utilitarianism, legalizing performance enhancing drugs would be morally wrong. I believe that virtue ethics functions better in this situation, as the theory better encompasses the motivation of the athletes using performance enhancing drugs, rather than just seeing the negative consequences with no other context using rule utilitarianism. Performance enhancing drugs, often referred to as steroids, or anabolics, encompass a large variety of supplements that can range from building muscle, building strength, building better cardio, and reducing pain and fatigue. The compounds commonly found in sports are human growth hormone, testosterone enanthate, SARMS, painkillers, dianabol, primobolen, and so much more. The issue at hand is that these compounds are found in every single sport, and is often referred to as “who can take the most steroids, without getting caught?” Even though steroids are illegal in most countries and in any professional sport, athletes still try to find loopholes in order to get an advantage over the competitors, the reason being “steroids are going to give you your dream, or so close to your dreams that you are going to be able to touch them” as Mike Tyson explained in his podcast. Another issue is the lax testing procedures of the committees, sports like track and field have very low levels of testing and are very easy to hide steroids from. Derek from MPMD talks specifically about the carbon ratio isotope test that is currently being used in the track in field sports at the Olympic level, and how easy it is to hide unwanted test results. Peer pressure also plays a role in PED usage as especially in team sports, you want to be able to perform at the same level or better than your team (Rijt, et al.). The sport Andrew Hebert most notorious for doping is biking, such as the competitions for the Tour de France, where 7x winner Lance Armstrong is a known steroid abuser (Sefiha 214). Another issue is how the steroids are becoming easier and relatively safer to use, and they push athletes to use substances that are still dangerous in order to reach a maximum potential that is not naturally human (Savulescu et al.). Overall, the main issue is that steroids are viewed as dangerous and harmful to the organs and body, and they push people to cheat in order to gain a competitive advantage. To begin, the rule of virtue ethics, would suggest that legalizing performance enhancing drugs in a professional sport context, would be morally correct. Virtue ethics focuses on the motivation behind an act, rather than the act itself. As of right now based on the virtue ethics theories to motivation behind using performance enhancing drugs is to cheat, which is morally wrong. However, if PEDs were to become legalized for professional sports, the motivation behind using PEDs would change, and become the motivation to break through humanachievable plateaus (Savulescu et al.). There no longer would be a motivation to have an unfair advantage (cheating), as every athlete would have access to the PEDs. Of course, it is important to remember that virtue ethics also encompasses the golden mean theory. This theory explains how everything should be in the perfect ratio (mean), too little is bad, and too much is bad. Allowing steroids to become completely legal would be in the excess category. Athletes would blast as much PEDs as they can withstand, which is incredibly unsafe for the organs and cardiovascular system. On the other side of the spectrum, if PEDs were completely illegal, and not allowed, it would promote cheating and loopholes to get to an unfair advantage. The golden mean would be to have PEDs legalized for professional sports, yet to have it be monitored by experienced physicians and doctors. This would allow the athletes to be in the same category as each other (PED wise) and would promote the fair play and breaking through human achievable Andrew Hebert barriers. Legalizing PEDs yet monitoring them would lead to a reduction in stigma surrounding the big bad steroids, which leads to higher transparency of doping athletes, which would also lead to an increase in steroid research by professionals, which would allow for safer compound to be created. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand, is the complete opposite. Rule utilitarianism focuses on rules that should be followed in order to promote the best possible outcome for everyone involved. In this case, legalizing the usage of PEDs in professional sports does not promote what is the best outcome for everyone involved. PEDs are dangerous compounds that alter the human body and biological functions. Steroids such as Trenbolone Acetate and Dianabol are known to be extremely proficient in muscle and strength building, yet also come with side effects that can leave you with failing hearts and organs. It is definitely not promoting what is best for everyone as the athletes are putting their lives in danger for the entertainment of others. PEDs are linked with liver issues, endocrine, issues with reproductive functions, tumors in the kidneys, enlarged heart, and multiple psychological disorders. PEDs also threaten the integrity of the sport, as it essentially comes down to who can use the most steroids possible and still be able to compete, which is an incredibly unsafe way to think. Legalizing PEDs would also lead to influencing the younger generation into taking the same or similar compounds in order to be the same as their athlete heroes. Steroids can stunt growth and completely shut of hormone production which is especially important for the younger generation who still have growing bodies and brains. Using rule utilitarianism, there are many points that are wrong in virtue rthics. The first one being the golden mean, virtue ethics would suggest that legalizing PEDs yet having them monitored lies within the golden mean. The issue with this is that there is no safe does of steroids, no matter if you take 1g of Trenbolone or 50mg of Testosterone Enanthate, each will have negative side effects. Consuming a litre of gasoline is unsafe, consuming just one Andrew Hebert tablespoon is much safer, yet is still incredibly unsafe. This is the exact same thing as PEDs, there will always be side effects, which are dangerous, and don’t promote the overall best outcome for everyone involved including the athletes. On the other hand, virtue ethics also has a couple issues with rule utilitarianism. The first issue being that in order for rule utilitarianism to work, the rules actually have to be followed, which is clearly not the case, as sports such as cycling go hand and hand with steroids. 7 time tour de France winner lance Armstrong was doping every time he competed, yet he managed to evade detection. In virtue ethics the rules would be followed as it would be legal to use performance enhancing drugs, whilst simultaneously remaining in the golden mean. Another one of the issues virtue ethics takes with rule utilitarianism is the view on how dangerous steroids are. The reason steroids are dangerous right now is because there is not a lot of research around them, and certainly not any research that is legal. If steroids in professional sports would become legal, it would allow better research to be available, which allows for safer dosages and safer compounds, and therefore would not be “dangerous”. It is clear that the superior theory to answer if performance enhancing drugs should be legalized in professional sports, is virtue ethics. The reason why virtue ethics works so much better with this moral question is due to a couple things, the first completeness. Virtue ethics is the one that encompasses the biggest number of moral claims, as it encompasses, justice, motivation, happiness, and safety. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand solely focuses on the best outcome for everyone, and safety. The second reason is due to explanatory power. Virtue ethics uses powerful moral insights into the athlete and why they are using the anabolic compound, and what their goals are, while rule utilitarianism on the other hand focuses on how its breaking the rules and is dangerous to use. The third reason is practicability. Virtue ethics is Andrew Hebert also the clear winner in this category due to the fact that it is the only option that is viable to practice. Legalizing PEDs would allow for more monitoring and allow the athletes to focus on the sport rather than on the technicalities on how not to get caught. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand in not at all practicable. Athletes break the rules all the time in order to gain an advantage over their competitors, and even though its not allowed they currently do it in modern day sports. The fourth and final reason is moral confirmation. Virtue ethics gives the correct answer to this question when compared to rule utilitarianism. Virtue ethics allows for athletes to try their best on an even playing field, whilst rule utilitarianism claims that all PEDs are bad and doesn’t acknowledge that PEDs are already being used against the rules in modern day sports. Therefore, based on these four reasons, virtue ethics answer to legalizing PEDs is the best choice. To conclude this essay, virtue ethics claims that legalizing PEDs in professional sports would be morally correct, whilst rule utilitarianism would claim that legalizing PEDs in morally wrong. Virtue ethics uses the motivation as its greatest argument, as if PEDs were legalized the motivation would be to break through human achievable plateaus. Rule utilitarianism wants what is the best possible outcome for everyone involved and claims that it would be morally wrong to legalize PEDs as they are dangerous compounds and promote usage in the young generation. Therefore, it is clear that legalizing PEDs would be the morally correct thing to do, as virtue ethics has the best arguments to support its theory. To depart it is important to remember that as of right now professional sports are plagues with people doping in secret, and hiding it from the knowledge of the public, and that legalizing PEDs would cause an outcry in the public in the short-term view, yet would it actually be beneficial to the overall integrity of sports? Andrew Hebert Works cited Derek. “Justin Gatlin’s Steroid Cycle - What He Used And Why (PEDs In Olympic Sprinting)”. Youtube, uploaded by More Plates More Dates, May 10, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-UdyXxPSJ0&ab_channel=MorePlatesMoreDates Tyson, Mike. “Mike Tyson Explains Steroid Use in Sports | Hotboxin with Mike Tyson”. Youtube, uploaded by Hotboxin' with Mike Tyson Clips, November 24, 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu_aWlfiRvY&ab_channel=Hotboxin%27withMike TysonClips Murray, Joshua, Arnout van de Rijt, and John M. Shandra. "Why they Juice: The Role of Social Forces in Performance Enhancing Drug use by Professional Athletes." Sociological Focus, vol. 46, no. 4, 2013, pp. 281-294. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarlyjournals/why-they-juice-role-social-forces-performance/docview/1491114803/se2?accountid=44391, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2013.825832. Sefiha, Ophir. "Bike Racing, Neutralization, and the Social Construction of PerformanceEnhancing Drug use." Contemporary Drug Problems, vol. 39, no. 2, 2012, pp. 213245,194. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/bike-racingneutralization-social-construction/docview/1112538971/se-2?accountid=44391. Savulescu, J., B. Foddy, and M. Clayton. "Why we should Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport." British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 38, no. 6, 2004, pp. 666. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/why-we-should-allow-performanceenhancing-drugs/docview/1778988706/se-2, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2003.005249. Andrew Hebert
