Okay Sup Forums i'm gonna take a long shot here and see if we can not only have an intelligent conversation but also...

okay Sup Forums i'm gonna take a long shot here and see if we can not only have an intelligent conversation but also reach a consensus on an issue or discover new insight related to this topic.
I'm currently taking a high level biomedical ethics course and a topic was brought up in class concerning performance enhancing substances and their morality.

I offered my opinion on them which is something like this.
The athletes who do not wish to endure the negative side effects of performance enhancing drugs feel as though they must take them in order to remain competitive against the athletes who do. Therefore if performance-enhancing substances with significant risks to an athlete’s health in professional sports are approved, this would be immoral. Professional athletes have immense pressures associated with their athletic performance. An athlete’s livelihood, future, and stability lie in their ability to perform in a way that is not just impressive by itself but superior when compared to other professional athlete’s performances. There is no necessity in taking performance enhancing drugs for athletic competition but, when one athlete is willing to accept the unnecessary risks of taking performance enhancing drugs, he or she will coerce others into taking on these risks as well.

my professor is a smart ass and responded with the stupidest comparison in the world but I can't think about how to refute it.
It keeps me up at night Sup Forums

The response was that training can also be a form a coercion. Over training has risks to your health in the same way performance enhancing substances create risks to your health. both are forms of coercion in the sense that one athlete will feel compelled to over train or take performance enhancing substances in order to compete if other athletes are.

How the fuck do I argue against this Sup Forums?

Bump

Help me Sup Forums

Hate box

Hate box?

drugs are way more dangerous. if sports are wanted, a line must be drawn.

Common Sup Forums i know atleast one of you loves stuff like this

But how does one distinguish this line?
Are there quantifibale metrics to which we can measure this line and have everyone agree that anything before this said line is okay, but anything after is bad. It seems like the only way we could assign a line would be to do so arbitrarily.

Your prof has you beat user.

Your argument is this:

1. Something which athletes feel compelled to do but which can cause significant risks to athlete health is immoral
2. Athletes are compelled to take Performance enhancing drugs which harms health
3. PEDs are immoral

But your prof pointed out training can also be an example of 2.

In fact for a bodybuilder even diet can be an example of 2.

You need more than just your two initial conditions.

Youtube hate box

agreed, seems like you formatted things appropriate for a philosophy course as well.
Do you think there is any way I can modify my thesis or conclusions to get around the training counter argument?

Sportsfag here, the line
>Over training has risks to your health in the same way performance enhancing substances create risks to your health

May be the dumbest thing I've ever heard,
NO athlete that knows what they're doing will ever EVER and I mean EVER be compelled to over train, since there is no benefit to it at all, in fact, over training is actively AVOIDED because of the negative effects,

i suppose we could format it for now to look like this?

1. Something which athletes feel compelled to do but which can cause significant risks to athlete health is immoral
2. Athletes are compelled to take Performance enhancing drugs which harms health
3. Athletes are compelled to over train which harms health
4. PEDs and over training are immoral

Yes. Think why are PEDs considered illegal but training isn't? One aspect is the harm, and you might be able to argue that it harms more than just training. But there's also the unfair advantage aspect. In sports where PEDs are prohibited, taking them anyway gives you an unfair advantage. So your victory is not merited.

Training requires dedication and willpower unlike drugs.
Overtraining will lead to immediate injuries which would defy their purpose whereas drugs would have a long term effect.

Sports are show. The line is drawn, where one concept/behaviour (training) ends and another (PED) begins. So spectators can understand and agree.

yeah but I think you are missing the point. While i agree with you and i think you are right it seems that even if people don't "over train" they are still at risk to injury while training.

Yet over training happens all the time. Ive been boxing for over 7 years and I still go over my limits even though I try not to.

Also during fights you are compelled to overly exert yourself even if it means fighting with a torn shoulder.

I meant: Sports for spectators are show. Sports for personal fitness are much less regulated PED-wise.

OP here. How about something like this?

Sports and them athletes that participate in them are celebrated for their extraordinary performances. They are admirable to us because they hard work and dedication put into them is something to marvel. Training resembles this process but Performance enhancing substances do not.

I hate this though because it's not really a refute. i've more of a straw man argument. I'd like to stay on the topic of coercion and not drift off to an entirely different argument because i truly feel that coercion is the problem with Performance enhancing drugs

Bump

pretty much it. Training require time and ressources, drug require nothing, except the fact that you may harm yourself, but in the current process, this fact is irrelevant. The probleme with drug is that you can ADD it to your training/diet.. without any effort, and gain a unfair advantage upon other competitor. And also the fact that it's something that not coming from you. Because if you allow drug, why not allowing other enhancement like -in the future- body enhancement or even, for cycliste, a small motor on your bike. It's exactly like drug, that don't came from you, you have to buy it and it give you a boost.

Feeling compelled =/= Being coerced.
Try again.

I agree but then people could just say taking a multi vitamin everyday is the same thing. Why do we allow multi vitamins and not motors on our bike. The multivitmain gave me an extra advantage with zero effort from myself.
I'd like to stay on the topic of coercion though as I feel like thats the only one that can't be bs'd around except for the current predicament i have offered

...

Athletes who take PEDs in a sport that prohibits them coerces other athletes to do so as well to remain competitive. This gives PEDs unfair advantage over those following the rules.

Athletes who train also coerces other athletes to train to remain competitive. But there's no unfair advantage because everyone trains.

If a sport allows PEDs then it's a different story. You would have to find an argument from harm.

Wrestling is a special sport, where the line is drawn differently. Here steroids seem to be part of the show, whereas if an athlete showed up being on meth, he would likely be rejected. So I guess where the line is drawn depends on the show and the spectator.

hmmm this is pretty good user.

Do you mean something like this?
Athletes are inherently okay with training there is no coercion needed to make an athlete train.
Performance enhancers have negative health effects that some athletes do not wish to endure so performance enhancing drugs are immoral but training is not.

Is that right?
What about the coercion for athletes to overtrain though? certainly some don't want to train as much as they do but feel compelled to do so in order to remain competitive.

Really depending on the sport, in certain sports, such as weightlifting just doing it on a large scale risks some major injuries if you push yourself. sure I will admit that. But with most sports, major injuries are not a risk, take for example kayaking. which is what Im doing now. If you take all the necessary precautions, Warm up, warm down, stretch, and not over training. then the chance of injury is close to 0

ok 2 things,
If over training happens all the time to you then I would give you the advice of actually listening to your body, (Wow that sounds fucking gay) but really, If you are about to enter a state of over training then you will feel it. And it will be obvious if you know what you're looking for,

You should begin with looking up the definition of over training, no one has over training as a goal

bump

Athletes are compelled to train since everyone else trains. And like user said above over training is not the norm, and is actively avoided most of the time because it's harmful.

PEDs instead encourage over training, which means it encourage the athletes to seek out self harm. And for unfair advantage too in a sport where it's banned

OP here
how about this?

This seems like a valid argument against coercion but for invalid reasons. We cherish athletics because of the hard work and dedication that athletes have contributed to their training in order to put on extraordinary performances. Without this hard work and dedication that is inherent in training at a professional level we would not hold professionally competitive sports with nearly as much compassion as we do today. One might say that the self-sacrifice and risk that these athletes endure to compete is what we cherish but I liken it much more to an athletes hard work and dedication

Is this good?

you are focusing to much on the word overtraining here. People can still get hurt through training even a little bit. I could simply say there should be no training at all to eliminate coercion in the defense of health risks.

I understand what you mean, but imo there is 3 factor you need to keep in your head : coercion, discretion and repercussions.
You already get the coercion part, on the discretion side, it all come to what will be noticed. Imagine you have a very high-tech small motor that can hide in a bicycle gear that can avoid screening, then every competitor will have to get it too, and if in the end we allow it like your professor want to for the drug (if I understood correctly?) then the motor will not need to hide anymore, and will get biger and biger, and we'll just end up with a motorcycle race unleast of a bicycle one...
Now for the Repercussions part, everything have more or less repercution, using some vitamins will never get you won a race alone, because if other competitor just has a proper diet, they already have their need in vitamins. But in the case of drugs, it will dramastically change the outcome. I one day a machine capable of making muscles way stronger and enduring with no effort, it shoukd be prohibited like drugs are, because it would take way the "sport" POV.
Just remember that all of this is about SPORT, and SPORT have his own rules, if it is stated that using drug or motor are prohibited to compete in this discipline, THEN IT IS, no matter what, no questions. You don't argue about not using your hand in soccer right ? then why arguing in using drugs in sport too?

> People can still get hurt through training even a little bit
Are you absolutely fucking retarded? I'm in shock, honestly didn't think anyone could be this stupid, fucking hell, the biggest risk you have with very light training is fucking stubbing your toe, unless you are an absolute tard that does not care about personal safety, such as stretching and warm up. But the thing is, you can get hurt doing anything if you don't care about safety. Let's stop cooking because people can burn themselves. or continue to make fucking food but just wear mittens when dealing with hot stuff.

Not that user
But overtraining is what ties your argument to coercion. I don't think it's dispensable

you are very intelligent and i absolutely agree I think it's just to far off topic for me to use to refute against my professor.
There are many arguments that can be made against performance enhancing substances. This just happens to be a different one then mine and could very well be a successful one with thought put into it the way you have. Yet, I am trying to figure out how to beat my professor in an argument based on grounds of coercion not fairness or rules.

...

good point I think you actually helped me user.
I kinda went with the same route of argument here but a little more professional.
Think you could help?

...

...

Sport for spectators is a show and if athletes try to earn money there, they must have a realistic perspective. So when they are some years on the job, and grew dependent on it, they are coerced to set rules against influences, that could destroy the show.
No one wants to see the sprint where the fastest athlete instantly dies from a side effect.
The show feeds and the show coerces. Those who do not participate in the show are way less coerced.

ment to link you to this post

sorry ment to link you to this post