In this posting I want to examine the links between games,
sport and performance enhancing drugs. Hopefully this examination will shed
some light on interesting questions. Is sport always a game? Playing football
clearly is playing a game but is the same true of someone competing in
athletics? I will argue all sport is a game. Play matters to children as it helps them learn. Does play matter to adult or is it just
a trivial pursuit? I will argue that playing games matters to adults. I will further argue sport matters because playing games matters. What
reasons can be advanced for not taking performance enhancing drugs when playing
sport? I will argue that taking performance enhancing drugs erodes the value of
sport. Before beginning my examination I will try to define what is meant by a
game and sport.
What do we mean by a game? Games vary greatly. Snakes and
ladders, Grand Theft Auto and football are all games but they are all very
different. Wittgenstein argued that it is impossible to define a game. (1) In
what follows I will use the definition of Bernad Suits adopted by John Danaher. (2) According to
Danaher a game must have a goal, some rules and a certain attitude. The goal of
a game is some outcome that is intelligible apart from the game. Achieving
checkmate or scoring more goals that the opposition by full time would be goals
of a game. The rules of a game are constitutive rules, they help define the
game by defining the ways in which the goal of the game can be reached. These
rules can be regarded as artificial obstacles to achieving the goal. For
instance a player must take his turn and go up ladders and down snakes. A goal
is only scored if the ball is kicked or headed into the net. Lastly for some
activity to count as a game the player or players must commit to accepting the
rules of the game in order to make the game possible. This commitment is a
commitment not to cheat. For instance handling the ball into the net would not
be playing football. This is a very broad definition of games and might include
lots of activities we wouldn’t normally consider as games such as knitting. Danaher points out
that if some billionaire decided to build himself a house which he could easily
obtain by other means that he would be playing a game. The objective is the
finished house. The rule is build it himself, an artificial obstacle. The attitude
is to do so only by himself. It follows games need not be competitive. In spite
of the broadness of this definition I will adopt it in what follows.
Is engaging in sport playing a game? We talk about playing
a game and we often talk about playing sport which suggests that it is. Certainly
some sports are games such as football but are all sports games? I now want to
argue that all sports are games. I will further argue that sports might be
defined as a subset of games in general involving competition. However chess is
a competitive game and isn’t usually thought of as a sport. Sport might then be
better defined as a subset of games involving physical competition. It might be
objected that athletes running in a race aren’t playing a game. However if we
accept Danaher’s definition of a game they are. An athlete’s objective is to
win the race, he must do so by running round the course and not cheat by taking
a shortcut. Let us accept that sport is a subset of games which involve
physical competition. Accepting the above means that we can explain the difference
between elite runners and fun runners running a marathon. Elite runners are
competing and fun runners who aren’t. Elite runners are engaging in sport whilst
fun runners are simply playing a game. Accepting the above also means that
athletes training for sport aren’t engaging in sport but preparing for sport.
Does playing games have any value? It might be suggested
that playing some games is a trivial pursuit of little value. However I now want to argue
that playing difficult games is valuable. According to Danaher,
“Games will be arenas in which human autonomy and agency
can be nurtured and developed. They will provide opportunities for humans to
think, plan, and decide; to cultivate moral virtues such as courage,
generosity, and fair play; and to display ingenuity and creativity. This is not
an unusual or alien idea. People have long argued that the value of sports, for
example, lies in their capacity to develop such attributes and provide outlets
for human agency to flourish.” (3)
If we accept Danaher’s position then participation in sport
matters because sport is a game and games enable players to exhibit and develop
character by fostering certain virtues, I have argued this previously, see wooler.scottus . It might be objected that whilst
some game playing is connected to character that it is ridiculous to say that
this is true of all games. My objector might point out that playing ‘snakes and
ladders’ doesn’t help develop character. He might give as a reason that the
goal of the game in this case is just too trivial. He might then proceed to
argue that any goal in any game is trivial because we place artificial
obstacles, the rules, in our way of achieving it. In response to my objector I
would accept that for adults the playing of ‘snakes and ladders’ is indeed a
trivial pursuit. However few, if any, games of ‘snakes and ladders’ are played
purely between adults. ‘Snakes and ladders’ is usually played by a group of
adults and children. ‘Snakes and ladders’ helps teach children not to cheat,
the virtue of honesty. The virtue of honesty fosters the development of good character.
The goal when playing ‘snakes and ladders’ is to reach the finish first but I
would suggest when playing ‘snakes and ladders’ we have two other goals in
mind. First simply to have a bit of fun, another trivial pursuit. Secondly to
teach children not to cheat a non-trivial pursuit connected to the development
of character. These goals could be seen as a mixture of instrumental and
intrinsic goals. All goals capture our attention and I will follow Bennett Helm
in regarding then as the focus and sub focus of our attention (4). Perhaps when
playing ‘snakes and ladders’ the sub focus is on reaching the finish first
whilst the focus is on teaching children to play games fairly. It might appear
that knocking a white ball into a hole is a trivial pursuit but if it helps
develop character it isn’t. Knocking the ball into the hole is the sub focus of
the game whilst developing good character is the focus.
Let us accept that games are valuable because they foster
character. I now want to argue that games are valuable for another reason. I
will now argue some games are valuable because they give us a sense of
achievement. Achievement isn’t simply about winning it is about how we win. An
achievement consists of a product and a process by which the product is
attained. I will only consider the process here. According to Gwen Bradford
there are two essential elements to any achievement (5). For something to be an
achievement it must be difficult and the agent must cause it competently. I
will only consider difficulty here. If something is difficult to do then we
have to make an effort which engages our will. Let us accept that a life in
which someone exercises his will is a better one than one in which he simply
exists or spends his time daydreaming. It follows that because some games are
concerned with achievement which is difficult that these games have value
because they foster the will. Of course not all games can give us a sense of
achievement. Winning at ‘snakes and ladders’ isn’t difficult and requires
little effort. However many games are difficult and this is true of sport which
by definition used above require physical effort.
It might be objected that sports differs from games in
general by having a different focus. For instance it might be suggested that
professional sport shows that the focus of sport isn’t on character. The focus
of professional sport is on earning a living, doing a job, rather than on character.
My objector seems to agree with me that the focus of sport isn’t simply on winning
and that winning is a sub focus, but disagree with me about the real focus. The
fact that we place artificial obstacles, the rules, in the way of winning seems
to support the above. Let us consider the focus of professional footballers. I
am prepared to agree with my objector that their focus is on earning a living
but the focus of the players isn’t of necessity the focus of the game itself. I
am also prepared to accept that a main focus of players in any game is on winning
but would argue that this isn't the focus of the game. It might be objected
that players can have a focus games can't. In response I would suggest that the
focus of games is on what we find valuable about them, the reason we play them.
Let us accept the rules of any game place restrictions on what players can do. If
we accept that these rules aren’t purposeless then we must ask the question
what is their purpose? This purpose could be to protect the players from
something or to enable them to do something.
For instance the rules in football might protect the players from injury.
However it is hard to see what the rules in athletics protect the athletes from.
Moreover the rules in football extend far beyond those needed for player protection.
Perhaps the purpose of the rules is to enable athletes in some way.
If we accept the above what might the rules of the game
enable players to do? I will now argue that the rules of a game enable the
players gain a sense of achievement and develop certain virtues both of which
are valuable. Let us consider achievement first. The rules of a game place
artificial obstacles in our way of obtaining the goal of the game. It follows
the rules of the game make obtaining this goal difficult to some degree. It has
been argued above that doing something difficult gives us a sense of
achievement. It follows that the rules of the game help give us a sense of
achievement. The rules of the game don’t help or hinder professional
footballers from making a living but they can give them a sense of achievement.
Let us now consider virtue. The rules of a game enable athletes to demonstrate
of develop certain qualities. These qualities can be physical or mental
qualities. For instance it might be argued that the rules of football might
enable a footballer to develop and demonstrate his ability to head the ball.
However it might be argued that the rules of a game don’t help a player in
developing or demonstrating his physical skills. All obstacles make something
harder to do and it difficult to see how making something harder to do can
assist players to demonstrating or develop their physical skills. Do the rules
of football assist a player develop her heading skills, surely a player can
develop these skills in the absence of rules? Do the rules, artificial
obstacles, assist athletes develop mental traits? Our intuitions suggest that
the answer should be yes. We naturally talk about athletes exhibiting
determination, patience, courage and not letting their heads drop. These traits
seem to be a form of resilience. If we accept that sport fosters these traits
then because these traits are connected to good character sport helps develop
character. It might be objected that I am presenting a completely unrealistic
outdated Corinthian ideal of sport. In response I would point out that sport
isn’t just about winning it is about winning fairly. Someone can win something
without being fair. Life is full of winners and losers and isn’t fair. Acting
fairly seems to be totally unconnected to winning, consider winning a war. If
we accept that fairness is an essential element of sport then we must ask the
question why? I argued above that the rules of a game don’t enable players to
develop or demonstrate their physical skills. I now want to argue that the same
applies to fairness. The simple fact a game is fair doesn’t affect the players
athletic abilities. The fact that a game is fair allows players to develop and
demonstrate certain beneficial mental qualities or virtues. It follows that the
rules of a game foster certain virtues in those who play it. It further follows
what is valuable about games is also what is valuable about sport.
Let us accept that sport is valuable because it fosters a
sense of achievement and encourages certain virtues. What implications does our
acceptance have for the taking of performance enhancing drugs? These drugs are
endemic in some sports such as professional cycling. Perhaps if these drugs
were tested and found to be safe the rules of some sports could be amended to
permit their use. According to Julian Savulescu,
“performance
enhancement is not against the spirit of cycling; it is the spirit cycling” he
goes on to suggest that “we should focus on monitoring the athletes’ health
rather than on losing a war on doping”, see Practical
Ethics.
In response it might be argued that if performance
enhancing drugs were only available to some athletes the fairness element of
sport would disappear. However let us assume that these drugs are safe, cheap
and available to all. In these circumstances it might be suggested that the
fairness element of sport isn’t damaged because enhancing drugs are available
to all. However in these circumstances can athletes still gain a sense of
achievement, develop and display their character? Let us accept than sport
encourages courage, fortitude, resilience and patience. If performance
enhancing drugs are introduced into sport then perhaps the exercise of these
qualities becomes easier. If the exercise of these qualities becomes too easy
then sport no longer helps in the development of character. Moreover even if
the introduction of these drugs doesn’t damage the development of these
qualities it remains hard to see how their introduction benefits sport. If
these drugs don’t benefit one athlete more than another it is hard to see why
any athlete would want to take them. However if they benefit some athletes at
the expense of others they damage the fairness of sport. They shift the focus
of sport from character development to winning. Lastly I have argued that sport
fosters character by fostering the will due to achievement. However if the
scale of someone’s achievement depends on the degree of difficulty involved and
this difficulty is decreased by the use of drugs then his achievement is
diminished.
What conclusions can be drawn from the above? Firstly sport
is a game. Secondly games are valuable. The value can be trivial in some cases
but all games have value. Thirdly performance enhancing drugs decrease the
value of sport. Lastly Danaher has argued the AI and increasing automation will
lead to widespread loss of jobs which will further lead to a loss of meaning. In these circumstances Danaher further argues playing games can bring some value into our lives (6).
Perhaps he is right, I’m not sure. I have argued elsewhere that increasing
automation might make sport more important for many people in the future wooler.scottus
. Lastly if game playing might bring more meaning into the lives of who lose their jobs due to automation might game playing also bring more meaning into the lives of the elderly who give up their jobs when they retire. Perhaps old age is a time for games rather than being on holiday.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, 65.
- Danaher John, 2019, Automation and Utopia, Harvard University, page 231
- Danaher, page 234
- Bennett Helm, 2010 Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford University Press
- Gwen Bradford, 2015, Achievement, Oxford University Press
- Danaher, chapter 7.
