Sports Science (A+ work, No plagarism, Quality Work)

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 07(04):371–381 (2014)

Copyright c© 2014 by UniversityPublications.net

MORAL/ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT

IN SPORTS

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd

University of the West Indies, Jamaica

From as early as human memory can go, individuals in various cultures have engaged in various

recreational and competitive activities. It is from these recreational, entertainment and competition

activities that more organized and structured competitive games and sports were developed. The

foundation of these competitive sports hinges on fairness and honesty but these ethical concepts are not

always upheld. It is with this in mind that this paper seeks to offer a philosophical investigation into the

use of performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports with a focus on the importance of ethics and

fair play. We believe that the existing system of banning performance enhancement drugs and

punishing athletes caught using same may be warranted in order to maintain the integrity of sports. In a

quest to respond to the issues raised on fairness, our discussions will focus on an ethical framework.

From this ethical perspective, we combine Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian theory with Kant’s Deontology

theory to show how a combination of both theories can provide one possible response to the ethical

actions of athletes in respect to the use of performance enhancers. We argue for a form of ‘self duty’

that all athletes should have to the ethical rules as is applied to honesty and integrity.

Keywords: Moral, Ethics, Cheating, Sports.

Introduction

In each sport there are regulative and constitutive rules that seek to govern how the various sports are

played. Our focus will be on the regulatory rules specifically the ones regulating behaviour in relation to

the use of performance enhancing drugs. The anti-doping rules form an ethical foundation upon which

athletes should operate. These anti-doping rules seek to ensure that the values of fairness, honesty and

integrity are maintained. Noncompliance with these rules is considered cheating and cheating imply a

moral responsibility on the part of the offender. An activity that gives an athlete a competitive advantage

by knowingly violating the rules is morally wrong.

We view the use of Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED’s) by professional athletes as one way of

cheating in sports and, as a result, the athletes who decide to use these enhancers act immorally and

unethically, since they would have ignored the ethical value of honesty. The issue of non-compliance

with rules tends to involve other non-ethical components and actions as well. We find in sports, for

example, that discussions of some of the ethical issues that may arise may not be as clear cut ethical

issues but may also be classified as medical as well as legal. This would also hold true for other ethical

analysis in general. Our discussions on the place of performance enhancement drugs will focus on the

issue of whether or not a centrally moral question is present or whether it is merely a medical or empirical

371

372 Moral/Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement in Sports

one. The empirical or medical questions concern both the effectiveness of drug use for training and

competition and the possible harm such can have for the users.

Moral and Ethics

The moral questions will concern the appropriateness of the use of drugs in sports, especially when its’

use is seen as a breach of the principles of fair play. 1 The athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs

successfully would be awarded for performance that may not be had without the use of enhancers; it

would therefore be unfair to others who train naturally. We believe that the doping problem will not be

solved by making access to the drugs available to every performer. It would be unfair to expect an athlete

to accept a second place medal, for example, when it is known that the athlete awarded the first place

medal cheated. This unfair practice is therefore an unethical one. Although mention will be made of the

empirical questions, the ethical/moral questions will take precedence. In a quest to respond adequately to

the ethical issues, we would like to explore Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory of deontology as well as the

theory of utilitarianism, as put forward by Jeremy Bentham. We accept Kant’s view that since moral rules

are universally applicable to all human beings a duty is owed to obey these. We add to his views that the

individual should also hold a self duty to observe moral rules since in observing these rules, the individual

displays character and virtue that is necessary to the continued survival of the specie. In light of this, we

will argue for a form of duty that all athletes should hold in obedience to the ethical rules. The duty that

the athletes hold would be chiefly to the self. We maintain that the practice of ingesting performance

enhancers by athletes is unethical since it imposes levels of unfairness on competitors.

Maurine Ford reported one notion of ethics which involves “an investigation not only of one’s

relationship to moral codes but a tracing of those standards or norms that shape one’s actions and

behaviour.” 2 From time to time we find individuals deviating from the good values and intentions. This

occurs in instances where individuals are faced with situations that cause them to act contrary to their

commonly held beliefs. This is known as altruism. For example, an athlete may not believe that it is right

to participate in illegal gambling but decides to participate anyway. All just rules are binding and

obligatory which means acting outside of those rules would be acting contrary to the norm.

Morality usually encompasses all aspects of life where moral questions can arise; questions such as,

should I cheat when I play soccer to always secure a win? How ought I to respond if my teammate

decides to persuade me to use drugs? Morality is seen by Tom Beauchamp as “a social institution with a

code of learnable norms”. 3 Morality is then grounded in the practical affairs of social life. Although

morality as a social institution serves to guide individual conduct, William Frankena was quick to point

out that this does not necessarily mean that people merely act according to social norms and standards.

According to Frankena, “society’s moral system does indicate what is forbidden and what is permitted in

many areas. However, we also learn to take an individual moral perspective on many distinct issues where

society’s rules may not be very helpful.” 4 From this we can argue that morality teaches one to understand

how to apply standards from both a personal standpoint as well as from that of society at large. This

means that in making moral decisions one may need to not only have an understanding of the self but also

an understanding of where the ‘other’ falls in comparison to the self. This is considered as important since

culture and personal taste could cause some to overlook the sameness that exists between individuals.

1 W.M. Brown, “Paternalism, Drugs, and the Nature of Sports,” in Ethics in Sports, William J. Morgan William J.

et. al. (USA: Human Kinetics, 2001), 130. 2 Maurine Ford, “A New Sport Ethics: Taking Konig Seriously,” in, Sport Ethics in Context, Debra Shogan

(Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2007), 126. 3 Tom Beauchamp, “Moral Foundations,” in, Ethics and epidemiology, eds. Steven S. Coughlin and Tom L.

Beauchamp(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 24. 4 William Frankena, “Ethics”, in , Ethics and Morality in Sports Management, Joy T. DeSensi and Danny

Rosenberg (USA: Fitness Information Technology Inc., 2003), 31.

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd 373

In other words, those who we consider to be ‘the other’ could adhere to, hold and accept the same moral

views as us irrespective of cultures, personal tastes and choices.

It has been argued that ethical judgements contain a moral component as related to conduct or

values, yet morals and ethics can differ. We acknowledge the work of Michel Foucault and others who

have sought to offer distinctions between the concepts of ethics and morality. But, if we should consider

the ethical concept of fairness, it describes a set of values expressed in individual actions, while at the

same time operates as a moral rule that should be observed. The concept of fairness can either be right or

wrong, good or bad, dependent on the context. With this in mind, a distinction between ethics and

morality is not clearly drawn. Although we acknowledge the distinction made and respect the effort of

Foucault and others, a distinction does not seriously impact our discussion on morality in sports.

Therefore, in this paper, we will use the two terms interchangeably.

Analysis

Athletes, coaches and others involved in sports should observe and respect the regulative rules of the

game. This respect may be linked to preserving the integrity of sports which would be futile if unfairness

persists. On the one hand, fairness should not only be looked on as respect for the game but respect for the

profession that the athlete chooses to hold and participate in, and on the other, respect for the other

participants as selves with integrity that needs to be respected. If the game’s integrity is to be maintained,

it cannot be marred by constant drug problems as individuals will lose respect for, and interest in that

game as well as the players involved. This argument for fairness as respect for the game is “both moral

and psychological. On the moral side it is argued that sport should be participated in for its own sake.

Sport is only coherent if it is taken seriously on its own terms.” 5 From this one can argue that if athletes

are interested in the sport itself and not just winning, they will work hard to maintain the integrity of this

sport by not cheating. From a psychological perspective, “not only do people typically come to sport for

the intrinsic reasons, people who continue to play for intrinsic reasons have more fun.” 6 It can be argued

from this that if a spectator enjoys watching cricket he/she would also want to watch a game that is played

fairly. They could also lose respect for athletes who have committed a doping offence and as a result will

not enjoy watching that individual compete.

Some have questioned whether or not fairness can exist in sports competitions if all athletes are

allowed to use enhancers. In response to this, Claudio Tamburrini argues that “if everyone were free to

use whatever drugs he or she finds helpful, then the crucial test, the competition, would show who is most

fit and the competition would then become fair.” 7 He is asking for the doping ban to be lifted so that

athletes can adequately prepare for competitions using whatever means they think is best. He based this

conclusion on the notion that sports professions are like any other profession. From this he argues that it

would then be unreasonable to submit sport practitioners to restrictions that are not found in other areas of

professional life. Based on his line of reasoning, the doping ban is unreasonable as other professionals are

not subjected to this kind of scrutiny. One needs to acknowledge though that other professionals do not

compete in a similar way as athletes.

Also, ethical rules governing sports participation have nothing to do with who is most fit. Since

using performance enhancers is ethical wrong, ingesting these enhancers should not be condoned by any

means. The act of doping is ethically wrong because it imposes an unfair advantage on other athletes and

in turn interferes with their autonomy. A competition that focuses on who is fitter should then do so under

the guidelines of ethical rules. One also cannot logically argue that doping ban should be lifted in

5 A. Schneider and R. Butcher, “Fairness as Respect for the game,” in Ethics in Sport, William J. Morgan

(Champaign, III: Human Kinetics, 2007), 137 6 Schneider and Butcher, “Fair play,” 138.

7 Claudio Tamburrini, “What is Wrong with Doping,” in, Values in Sport Elitism, Nationalism, Gender Equality and

the Scientific Manufacturing of WinnerS, eds. Claudio Tamburrini and Torbjorn Tannsjo (USA: Taylor and Francis, 2000), 18.

374 Moral/Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement in Sports

professional sports because these do not apply in other sports. This stems from the fact that the use of

drugs is ethically wrong, no matter what sport we seek to investigate. It can be argued that although there

is competition in all professions, the focus on doping is greater in sports because of the different levels of

competition that sports may bring, as opposed to other professions. It would then not be unreasonable to

apply stringent drug bans in sports but it could be unreasonable not to apply drug measures as seen fit in

other professions. If everyone uses drugs, the competition in general would still not be fair as each

person would perform at a rate that they would not have performed on a regular basis. This would

especially not be fair for the sports that reward athletes based on endurance and speed, as raw natural

talents may not be identified. We acknowledge that talents and skills have to be developed through

various training regimen. It is expected that training and exercise is necessary to maintain as well as

develop the skills needed to perform. All athletes have to train to maintain fitness and health. Performance

enhancers are different from training regimens as these are used in some instances to add artificially to

endurance levels. This can allow athletes to train harder than their competitors who have not taken these

enhancers. Training regimens are necessarily needed to develop skills but performance enhancement

drugs are not. Performance drugs are therefore additional boost agents that some athletes feel they need to

gain an edge over competitors.

It is unavoidable for athletes in particular, and the general population at large, not to be confronted

with ethical/moral issues on a regular basis. It is for this reason that “every society has its set of moral

rules or guidelines that establish the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Often these rules are about

behaviour that might harm others (stealing, killing), behaviour that is concerned with the well being of

others (helping those in need, responding to the suffering of others), or actions that touch on issues of

respect for others.” 8 These rules go on to form the moral code of particular societies. One can argue,

however, that although each society has a set of moral rules that guide behaviour, these rules are not so

different from those of other societies, as moral problems that arise in one society will arise in another.

The interesting thing though is that each society formulates a unique way of dealing with those problems.

In a similar way, the general sports body has established ways to address ethical issues as these arise.

Context is therefore important when dealing with ethical issues. There are instances in which an ethical

issue in one sport may be treated differently across sports depending on the constitutive rules. Ethical

concepts also differ in sports. But what are these?

According to Graham McFee, “there are two very different sorts of ethical concepts (Bernard

Williams calls them ‘thin’ ethical concepts), such as good and right, and more descriptive, less abstract

concepts (Williams calls them ‘thick’ ethical concepts) such as cruel, pert, inconsiderate, and chaste. 9 In

order to garner an understanding of the ‘thick’ ethical concepts, there needs to be an awareness of the

‘evaluative interests’ with which that term is connected. For example,

a discussion of the concept of fair play that we had earlier discussed, might need to address any

differences between say, basketball (where there is the expectation of fouling) and other forms of

sports where intentional fouls get the player sent off. Typically, sport has a stronger connection to

the ethical than follows simply from the link between morality and human action, since ethical

questions arise naturally from sport itself, from the inherent characteristics of typical sports.

Sports are typically culturally valued and viewed as united (as one thing, sport); they typically

have explicit rules (and therefore the contravention of those rules is possible; there is often the

possibility of harm to participant (especially if rules are not followed); and the rhetoric of sport is

replete with metaphors employed in general ethical discussion – the idea of ‘fair play’ or of a

level playing field, for example. 10

8 Lawrence M. Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. [Belmont California: Cencage Learning,

Inc., 2008], 4. 9 Graham McFee, “Are there philosophical issues with respect to sport (other than ethical ones)?” in Ethics and

Sports, eds., M.J. McNamee and S.J. Parry (London: Routledge, 2002), 4-5 10

McFee, “Are there Philosophical Issues,”

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd 375

We can gather from this view that the structure of sport is based on ethical principles, and, there are

certain rules and value principles that should be followed when one becomes a member of a sports team.

We find that sometimes the notion of fair play in sport need not be a general idea across sports as some

rules in relation to how the game is played will differ. However, the nature of each sport and how these

are all practiced is integral to ethical analysis.

Some may ask why professional codes of ethics are important. In answering this question a number

of reasons present themselves. First, it is argued that

they offer apparent clarity and simplicity in a confusing world; secondly, they set out

standards and criteria to evaluate provision and expectation in relationships which are

consistent overtime. Thirdly, they offer a neutral framework for solving conflict or

ambiguity to those under the authority of the organization. Finally, in constraining certain

actions moral rules allow exclusion from that organization anyone who will not conform

to the code. 11

One can garner from the above that all organizations need a code of ethic that guides the daily

operations. These are necessary to solve conflicts and resolve issues which could arise. Thus, protection

is offered to each member of the organization. If exclusion for noncompliance with the code is not made

mandatory then the code could be deemed as useless, conflicts could also be harder to resolve, as

individuals may feel that they are under no obligation to comply. The sum of rules and principles, both

negative and positive, constitute “the moral code that is enshrined in rights, duties and obligations.” 12

Some have suggested that “the practice of positive moral values can lead toward a happy life; others have

stressed a good will that might guide one’s moral decisions. Still others claim that morality serves to

combat deteriorating social relationships.” 13

We can argue that morality can be a combination of all three

since one may feel happy participating in an act of goodwill whose outcome may result in mending and

building relationships both within and outside of sports.

Although it has been argued that the practice of moral virtues can lead to a happy life, a moral person

may very well have to sacrifice her happiness on many occasions in order to practice what is right.

Practicing moral virtue and happiness may not necessarily work together, as one could be virtuous but not

happy and vice versa. One can then add that positive moral values could be displayed simply because it is

the correct thing to do. If displaying positive moral values is done for only subjective reasons such as an

individual’s happiness, this can quickly deteriorate into immoral practices in order to achieve the end

result of happiness. We believe that there are variations in happiness. An athlete can be happy with a

second place medal, but will be happier with winning. It can also be argued that the practice of moral

actions censures selfish and harmful acts towards others so we get along better in society. This may hold

true as levels of violence, aggression and intolerance are reduced, which could lead to an overall benefit

for all. This practice of acting morally is difficult, especially since sports are so commercialized.

As long as sport is treated as a commodity, ethical issues will arise at the level of players, coaches,

doctors, managers etc., because while some try their best to observe the rules in order to maintain

integrity and honesty, others seek to capitalize in any way they can. This would be in the form of illegal

gambling, game fixing, using performance enhancers, etc., which are usually done at the expense of

others. A moral code then becomes integral in all areas of an individual’s life, as it not only serves as a

guide to conduct but emphasizes accountability for actions. This practice of treating sports as a

commodity needs to be addressed and the moral code observed by all. The aim of competition is to win

but the nature of sports stipulates that this be accomplished honestly (in accordance with the ethical

rules), not by using performance enhancers.

11 Mike, McNamee, Ethics and Sport, 151.

12 McNamee, Ethics and Sport, 151

13 Joy T. DeSensi, Danny Rosenberg, Ethics and Morality in Sports Management. (USA: Fitness Information

Technology Inc., 2003), 34.

376 Moral/Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement in Sports

Athletes “who decide to use performance enhancing drugs, such as anabolic steroids, believe that

these substances will facilitate the stimulation of tissue growth which will lead to bigger and stronger

muscles.” 14

With this development of muscle strength “it is hoped that they will be able to endure more

intense training which it is hoped, will give them that edge over their competitors. For example, Justin

Gatlin and Marion Jones, American track and field stars, both tested positive for steroid use, a drug that is

said to develop muscle strength.” 15

These are examples in which individual moral/ethical values become

subject to scrutiny since the actions of these athletes go against societal as well as group values and

norms. The athletes’ actions are then judged based on the expected societal and or group values. We can

argue that these athletes were not forced to use drugs by their peers, coaches, etc., but that they made a

conscious decision to secure the possibility of an unfair advantage. In her own words, Marion Jones

exclaimed, “Nobody forced me. At the end of the day, I was the one who made the decision to trust, not

to ask questions, and then ultimately lie when confronted with the truth.” 16

She knew her actions were

wrong and in the end she was faced with the consequences of her actions.

It can be argued that unlike Marion Jones Justin Gatlin and others, some athletes may be forced and

or pressured into the use of these drugs. This pressure may be derived from the frustration of always

placing in a position other than first place, as some athletes are reminded by coaches that winning is the

only thing. Others may be forced or coerced by coaches, doctors, etc., to use prohibited substances.

Some athletes then use drugs, on the one hand, to cope with low self-esteem which is linked to the anger

and frustration of losing or, on the other hand, to gain acceptance and recognition. For an athlete who

usually dominates a particular sport, that pressure could be to remain in the winning position at all costs,

hence the athlete may resort to the use of such drugs. Are these groups of athletes equally ethically and

morally responsible for their actions? A possible response to this question could be yes, since one can

argue that when one is faced with an ethical decision there is always an available choice apart from the

decision made. This other choice, although an ethical one, may however not be in the best interest of the

individual since it may not reap the desired results. An athlete has the right to choose actions that are

desired but should be careful not to allow desires to override reason especially when the outcome of the

choices can have negative effects on the person making the choice as well as on others.

From the above, one can deduce that when an athlete deliberately takes performance enhancing

substance, the athlete is thinking about his or her own self-interest and not so much with the moral

consequences that would flow from such an action for society and others who are affected. This athlete

would then totally disregard respect for the ‘self’ as well as the duty to maintain fairness and integrity in

sports. We would like to acknowledge that although ethical behaviours may be breached because of self-

interests, sponsors and others also have much to gain from the ‘superhuman’ capabilities of athletes. The

prospect of signing these athletes, such as Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, is however

shattered upon discovery of cheating. A choice that an athlete makes whether negative or positive will

therefore benefit others.

It may not always be moral to act based on one’s own self-interest only, especially when one is

participating in a team sport. The interest of the team should also be taken into consideration. There will

be times however when the negative values of the team will conflict with positive individual values. For

example, a cricketer can object to fixing a cricket match but his/her teammates might not consider match

fixing as being unethical. Whose value system will prevail? Also, a decision to use performance

enhancing substances is a negative value, but does one decide to use same because the entire team is

using? No, and this is one major reason why moral codes in sports are important, as decisions are made

based on the tenets of such a system. Although everyone does not have the same interest, the ethical codes

in sports ought to be followed by all in order to avoid further decay relating to substance use.

14 William J. Morgan, Klaus V. Meier and Angela J. Schneider, eds. Ethics in Sport (USA: Human Kinetics, 2001),

119. 15

Fred C. Pampel, Drugs and Sports (New York NY: Facts on File, 2007), 29. 16

Marion Jones, with Maggie Greenwood-Robinson, On the Right Track: from Olympic Downfall to finding Forgiveness and the strength to Overcome and Succeed (USA: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 34.

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd 377

Ethical Theories and PEDs

How do we begin to comprehend these moral issues in sports? We believe that Kant’s deontological

theory as well as Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism will both work to illuminate our understanding of the

problem of PEDs and the morality of their use in sports. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of the

action. Generally, utilitarian ethics require that “the moral judgement of an action should be based on the

consequences of the action rather than on the disposition of the mind (as Kant argues) or the individual

and social motives.” 17

Individuals adopting utilitarianism make ethical decisions based on what they think

the anticipated short or long term consequences will be for most people. For this principle,

actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce

the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by

unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. 18

This principle is three fold. Firstly, it stipulates that human beings should act in such a way that the

greatest balance of good over evil is promoted. That is, our actions should always depict goodness.

Secondly, our actions should be such that the greatest balance of pleasure over pain is produced. Actions

should be weighed to determine how the greatest pleasure can be attained. Thirdly, our actions should

produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of persons. With this tenet, it is the intention that

happiness will be distributed as widely and equally as possible. The greatest good involves attainment of

the greatest happiness for as many people as possible. Wrong actions would be those that end in

unhappiness while right actions lead to happiness in favour of the majority. With this theory, human

beings are bounded to a form of responsibility as, in acting, one should consider the number of persons

that could be affected positively or negatively.

There are different types of Utilitarianism but for the purpose of this paper we will focus on Jeremy

Bentham’s view which falls under the hedonistic camp. Bentham claimed that “nature has placed

mankind under the governance of two sovereign master, pain and pleasure, and referred to this as the

principle of utility.” 19

What is meant by this is three-fold. In the first instance, pain is anything

uncomfortable, which leads to some kind of suffering, and as such human beings avoid it as much as

possible. Indeed, the avoidance of pain is critical to the capacity of the human being to thrive, and

everything is done to minimize it; to that extent humans have created various resources and technologies

to reduce the amount of suffering and pain that must be dealt with in the process of living. From medical

efforts to environmental ones in cooling or heating our homes, pain is something that most humans avoid

– except in the case of masochists who have some form of abnormality. In the second instance, human

beings seek pleasure, because of the enjoyment and happiness such procure for the person. Many human

beings take the gratification of their senses as the basis of happiness, while some would claim that such is

a debasement of the intrinsic human ability to attain superior happiness through the engagement of the

mind. While in the third instance, dubbing as utility the ethical dimension of human avoidance of pain

and pursuit of pleasure leads to a kind of suggestion that the results – pain and pleasure – can be unitized

and measured or weighed, to determine which is superior or inferior.

Bentham tried to quantify pleasures and pains under the following seven categories:

intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (how soon experiences are felt), fecundity (the

likelihood of future pleasurable experiences), purity (how free from pain are the experiences), and

extent (the number of others who are affected). He believed one could calculate the goodness of

an action by listing the pleasures associated with the action, applying a numerical value (say +1

to + 10) for each of these in terms of the above categories, and then finding the total. After one

17 A. E. Karin, Culture, Sport and Physical Activity (USA: Volkwein-Caplan Pub., 2004), 61.

18 Judith Boss, Ethics for Life 3

rd ed.(USA: McGraw Hill, 2004), 266.

19 Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

Edited with an Introduction by Wilfred Harrison (Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Oxford, 1948), 125.

378 Moral/Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement in Sports

does the same for any pains (say – 1 to – 10) associated with the action, then the resultant sum,

either in favour of pleasures or of pains, would tell an individual what course of action to follow.

A positive total would be good, and the behaviour ought to be carried out. A negative total would

be bad, and the action ought to be avoided. 20

Here, Bentham is suggesting that pleasures and pain can be quantified. He is asking us to weigh all

actions against all others before we act. From this we can say that his starting point is quantification, the

end result is quality. For Bentham then, morality was not concerned only with quantity, but even more

significantly with the quality of the pleasures, happiness of avoidance of pain involved in an action are

the factors which determine whether an action is good or bad. With the calculus of pleasure over pain, it

is sure that there will be an objective basis for morality, and we would be in a position whereby we can

effectively tell persons what is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral.

Having elicited this objective foundation for morality, he then held that any and all pleasures were

equivalent. 21

So whether one enjoys rowing boats, washing dishes, doing math, watching sports and so

on, each activity is given the same status as a pleasure, it would mean that intrinsically no pleasure is

superior to another . Although we agree to the quality of happiness that can be produced, we have a

problem with the practicability of the quantification. There may be no way that any individual can

logically and accurately calculate pleasure over pain when sometimes that which causes the most pain

may also afford the greatest pleasure. For example, one could suffer drastic pain from the rigorous

training that goes into preparation for a competition but one may derive pleasure from the winning that

was gained through that tortuous regiment which confers superior advantage over opponents in a

competition. But how does one measure the pleasure that is derived from the winning vis a vis the pain

that goes into the preparation athletes must put in before the real competition?

The deontological views are unlike those purported by utilitarians. Like Utilitarianism, there are

different types of deontological theories but we will focus on Immanuel Kant’s views here.

Deontologists hold that the right is a more fundamental moral concept than the good. Rather than

identifying the best possible results and telling us to perform whatever actions will lead to these

results, deontological theories tell us that certain actions themselves are right and others are

wrong regardless of the consequences. In essence, the ends do not justify the means, some actions

are simply intrinsically wrong, and we ought not to perform them even in pursuit of the most

noble or outstanding consequences. 22

Based on this view, the end results of actions are not important to moral analysis. What is important

is that human beings are capable of rationalizing what the right action is without reflecting on the

consequences. We are asked here, not to rely on consequences to guide us into a moral direction. The

agent is to be guided through reason to perform actions that are right irrespective of consequences. Thus

in choosing an action, the agent should not reflect on any goodness that can be derived from participation

in such action but on whether or not that action is right. It is wrong for example to cheat, to steal, to

inflict bodily harm on others whether or not doing so will make you rich, gain more power or garner more

recognition.

For Kant, ethics has nothing to do with satisfying some identifiable end. In fact, if one could

demonstrate that an act was carried out to arrive at some desirable outcome; this would disqualify the act

as an ethical behaviour. For him,

nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification

except a goodwill. A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its

20 Bentham, Jeremy, A Fragment on Government, 151.

21 Bentham, A Fragment of Government, 155.

22 Heimir Geirsson and Margaret R. Holmgren eds., Ethical Theory A Concise Anthology (USA: Broadview Press,

2000), 109.

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd 379

aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition – that is, it is

good in itself, and considered by itself is to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought

about by it in favour of any inclination. 23

Morality in this sense is not dependent on the agent’s desires or any other inclinations. This does not

mean that Kant wants human beings to be deprived of pleasure and happiness. What his theory shows is

that the foundation of morality is not grounded on what each individual accepts to be right or wrong when

faced with moral dilemmas. Morality is absolute and therefore objective of each individual’s will. The

basic premise of Kantian ethics is that moral decisions arise out of a sense of duty rather than to produce a

desired result. He claims, “duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.” 24

His argument is

that human beings operate based on a “Categorical Imperative” or a command. This means that each

action is based on a duty to obey the right actions based on laws. The imperative becomes paramount

because first, it commands the individual to do a particular action, and second, it commands that

individual to not place a condition on the action. Because the agents' actions are duties, the agents are

under obligations to act based on these duties. From Kant’s arguments one could argue that human

beings garner what is right from various media within society such as socialization, numerous laws and

norms and so on. The way human beings react to these moral laws/duties will depend on who they are as

individuals or the kind of character they possess.

Someone with good character behaves morally from a pure sense of duty and not from a

consideration of the results of actions. From a Kantian point of view then, if an athlete does not lie or

cheat, and always obeys the rules but in doing so this athlete is thinking about the advantages and

gratifications that can be derived from such actions; these actions are no longer ethical. This would be so

because there are motives that are attached to the actions. This action should then only be performed for

its own sake. Kant tried to demonstrate the soundness of this basic tenet by relying on one’s ability to

reason clearly. Actions should be independent of any desire or influence.

Both Deontology and Utilitarianism can work effectively in analyzing moral actions within sports.

The athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs often does this to derive some form of happiness that

comes with winning, recognition and so on. But Bentham cautions us that quantification of actions should

not only be used for the sake of happiness. There is a condition, and this reflects the quality of the end

product. Although happiness is the end product, this happiness can be further quantified so that an

ultimate form is derived. An athlete for example will be elated about winning a race but this happiness

could multiply if the contributed to a new world record. We agree with Bentham that pleasure and

happiness can be attained but we add to his views that this comes through self determination especially

since there are so many things that could interfere with happiness.

Kant’s views are also applicable as athletes ought to act out of duty to the moral rules as these apply

to their organization. We accept Kant’s views that since moral rules are universally applicable to all

human beings a duty is owed to obey these. We add to his views that the individual should also hold a self

duty to observe moral rules since in observing these rules, the individual displays character and virtue that

is necessary to the continued survival of the specie. Athletes should then act based on a duty to the self

which is extended to a responsibility to the moral code that sports stipulate. This duty is directed toward

the self because without a subjective determination to uphold the universal moral rights, the moral decay

that exists will continue. Human beings and not organizations are the tools in correcting a decaying moral

system that they consciously or unconsciously created. One should follow the ethical guidelines simply

because they owe it to themselves to do so irrespective of the ‘short or long term’ happiness that they

might gain. Moral rules should not be observed in order to gain something. These should be observed

because it is each individual’s duty to obey moral law and avoid anarchy and chaos. Happiness is

maintained by performing the right action. If happiness is the end result for some athletes, how one attains

23 Immanuel Kant, “Selections from the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals,” in Ethical Theory A Concise

Anthology, eds. Heimir Geirsson and Margeret Holgren (USA: Broadview Press, 2000), 114. 24

Kant, ‘Selections,” 116.

380 Moral/Ethical Analysis of Performance Enhancement in Sports

this should be rationalized in such a way that happiness is maintained. Athletes can only be truly happy

for the achievements that were gained before doping. A duty to ensure honesty is important as this will

reduce most of the issues arising from duly feeling the pleasure and happiness that should accompany

winning. Only each athlete can make this possible through ‘self duty’.

Conclusion

Overall, we believe that everyone is responsible for ethical and unethical behaviours in sport. One can

argue that ethics is not optional, a condition that thus places the responsibility on all those associated with

the sport industry, including all spectators and fans. “Sometimes it is difficult to separate the

responsibilities of the players, fans, media personnel, coach, sport manager, sport director, sport

businesses and so forth.” 25

Although each individual or organization contributes something different to

the sport setting, the moral expectations of each situation should be the same in terms of professional and

ethical behaviour. 26

In essence, we believe that there ought to be set moral principles that guide behaviour

and action; principles that clearly state their basic expectations. A duty to ‘self’ and respect for others

should guide these behaviours. A focus on what the right actions should be, not only as a means to help

curb the ethical dilemma that already exists but aim to eliminate the potential ethical dilemmas that could

arise from inaction. There already exists such a code yet the problems continue to exist. What is needed is

to put in practice what the code already stipulates. If coaches and managers know that their athletes are

using performance enhancers and do nothing to stop the practice they would have acted contrary to the

code. These denizens of the sports industry should be held equally morally responsible as they would

have withheld information that is a clear breach of the existing moral code. Individuals in the sporting

world need then to be more proactive in addressing the problem. This may need to be done by starting

with a look into the nature of sports itself, how the structure, rules etc may add to ethical problems then

move to individual levels starting with those in charge of sports programs with a trickledown effect to

athletes. Since we have established that there may be a moral decay in sports, everyone involved needs to

assess the areas in which this decay persists and seek to develop same. If this is not done, the decay will

only increase.

Bibliography

1. Beauchamp, Tom. “Moral Foundations.” In Ethics and epidemiology. Edited by Steven S. Coughlin and Tom

L. Beauchamp. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

2. Bentham, Jeremy. A Fragment on Government and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and

Legislation. Edited with an Introduction by Wilfred Harrison. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Oxford, 1948.

3. Boss, Judith. Ethics for Life, 3 rd

ed. USA: McGraw Hill, 2004.

4. Brown, W.M. “Paternalism, Drugs, and the Nature of Sports.” In Ethics in Sports. eds. William J. Morgan et

al. USA: Human Kinetics, 2001.

5. DeSensi, Joy T. and Danny Rosenberg. Ethics and Morality in Sports Management. USA: Fitness Information

Technology Inc., 2003.

6. Ford, Maurine. “A New Sport Ethics: Taking Konig Seriously.” In, Sport Ethics in Context. Debra Shogan.

Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2007.

7. Geirsson, Heimir and Margaret R. Holmgren eds., Ethical Theory A Concise Anthology. USA: Broadview

Press, 2000.

8. Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Belmont California: Cencage

Learning, Inc., 2008.

25 DeSensi and Rosenberg, Ethics and Morality, 111.

26 Desensi and Rosenberg, 111

Sandra McCalla and Neil Shepherd 381

9. Jones, Marion with Maggie Greenwood-Robinson. On the Right Track: from Olympic Downfall to finding

Forgiveness and the strength to Overcome and Succeed. USA: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

10. Kant, Immanuel. “Selections from the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Ethical Theory A

Concise Anthology. Eds. Heimir Geirsson and Margeret Holgren. USA: Broadview Press, 2000.

11. Karin, A. E. Culture, Sport and Physical Activity. USA: Volkwein-Caplan Pub., 2004. Graham

12. McFee, Graham. “Are there philosophical issues with respect to sport (other than ethical ones)?” In, Ethics and

Sports. Edited by M.J. McNamee and S.J. Parry. London: Routledge, 2002.

13. McNamee, M.J. and S.J. Parry, Ethics and Sport. London, GBR: Routledge, 1998.

14. Morgan, William J. Klaus V. Meier and Angela J. Schneider, eds. Ethics in Sport. USA: Human Kinetics,

2001.

15. Pampel, Fred C. Drugs and Sports. New York NY: Facts on File, 2007.

16. Schneider, A. and R. Butcher. “Fairness as Respect for the game.” In Ethics in Sport, William J. Morgan

(Champaign, III: Human Kinetics, 2007).

17. Tamburrini, Claudio. “What is wrong with Doping?” In Values in Sport Elitism, Nationalism, Gender Equality

and the Scientific Manufacturing of Winners. Eds. Claudio Tamburrini and Torbjorn Tannsjo. USA: Taylor

and Francis, 2000.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.