Heather Dyke writing in the conversation examines why
doping in sport is wrong. In a previous posting I have argued that doping in
sport is wrong for three main reasons, see sport performance and enhancing drugs
. Firstly, I believe there should be a difference between sport and simple
spectacle and that the use performance enhancing drugs by sportspersons erodes
this difference. Secondly I argued that permitting performance enhancing drugs
simply moves the goalposts. If we don’t permit the use of all drugs, including
dangerous ones, we will still have to test whether any drugs used are permitted
ones. Lastly I argued what we admire about sport is linked to the determination
and effort required by sportspersons and that the use of performance enhancing
drugs weakens this link. Determination and effort are linked to motivation, to
character. I have previously argued that it would not be wrong to enhance our
motivation, see effectiveness enhancement . It
would appear that I hold two conflicting positions with regard to doping in
sport. In this posting I want to examine this conflict.
Let me start my examination by making it clear the sort of
doping I am opposed to. I believe any drug which enhances an athlete’s body
damages sport for the three reasons outlined above. If some mediocre athlete
could transform himself into an Olympic champion in a matter of weeks by taking
some drug which vastly physically enhanced him would we really admire him? I
would suggest we would not because we feel sporting excellence should require
some effort. Now let us consider a second mediocre athlete who transforms
himself into an Olympic champion over by taking some drug which enhances his
motivation over a number of years. By transforming his motivation, he trains
more determinedly and makes greater effort when training. This second athlete
raises three interesting questions. Firstly, is there any real difference in a
sporting context between an athlete taking a drug to enhance himself physically
and enhance himself mentally? Secondly would we admire such an athlete? Lastly
is the enhancement of someone’s motivation compatible with the ethos of sport?
I will now attempt to answer each of the above a questions
in turn. Is there any real difference in a sporting context between an athlete
taking a drug to enhance himself physically and enhance himself mentally?
Clearly there is a difference in this case because an athlete who enhances
himself physically with the use of drugs need make no effort to achieve his
enhancement whilst a second athlete who physically enhances herself by mentally
enhancing her motivation must still train hard. Does this difference matter?
The answer this additional question is connected to our second original
question. What do we admire about sportspeople? I would suggest we admire their
dedication to the effort required for their sport, we admire their motivation
for sport, we admire part of their character. Of course it follows we need not
admire all of a sportsperson’s character. Let us accept that we admire a
sportsperson’s motivation, effort and dedication. The question now would admire
his motivation, effort and dedication if these were artificially enhanced?
It might be argued that if we obtain certain goods easily
without any real determination that in so doing we devalue determination in
general. Let us assume it is possible to artificially enhance our motivation by
making us more determined. Let us accept that if an athlete enhances himself
physically by the use of drugs, gene therapy or blood doping that he devalues
the importance of motivation. Does the same apply if he enhances his motivation
artificially? I would suggest it does not. There is an important difference
between the enhancement of effectiveness and the enhancement of
motivation. Enhancing our effectiveness devalues our motivation
whilst it is hard to see how enhancing our motivation could possibly devalue
motivation. Accepting the above means it might be possible to
admire an athlete who artificially enhances his motivation whilst at the same
time failing to admire an athlete who simply enhances himself physically.
At this point someone might object that whilst accepting
someone who enhances his motivation does not devalue his motivation that
nonetheless he devalues himself as a person. He does so by making himself less
authentic. My objector might then argue someone shouldn’t enhance his motivation
because being authentic is something we value. In response I would point out
the things which make us authentic aren’t fixed from birth, babies aren’t
authentic. People seek to change themselves by enhancing themselves by training
or learning. I can see of no reason why people changing themselves by these
means will render themselves inauthentic. I would suggest someone’s authenticity
depends on him seeking goals he identifies with rather than the means he
chooses to seek these goals. Someone’s authenticity is determined by
what he loves or cares about. I would further suggest that a truly
authentic person must always choose those means which are most effective in
promoting the goals he identifies herself with. It follows if these
means include enhancing his motivation that this enhancement isn’t inauthentic.
Indeed, it appears that if someone doesn’t use the most effective means to
promote those goals he identifies with that his authenticity is weakened.
Sometimes those most effective means might include motivational enhancement and
it follows someone does not use motivational enhancement that his
authenticity is weakened
What conclusions can be drawn from the above. Firstly,
physical enhancement by artificial means devalues sport. Secondly motivational enhancement by
artificial means does not seem to conflict with the ethos of sport provided it
is accepted this ethos is connected to the sportsperson’s character. I accept
some people might be reluctant to accept this second conclusion and might
believe I am wrong to separate so completely the goals someone identifies with
and the means he uses to achieves his goals.
