Hating Vegans and Moral Distress

 

Most people are indifferent to vegetarians and vegans some however dislike them and a few appear to hate vegans. Kristof Dhont and Joachim Stoeber ask “what drives people to lash out at others who choose to eschew eating animals out of compassion?” (1) The anger of these people is mostly directed at vegans but also applies to vegetarians. In the rest of this posting I will use the term veg*ns to refer to both vegans and vegetarians. In what follows I will outline two reasons Dhont and Stoeber give for this anger and then examine whether these reasons can justify anger. I will argue they can’t. In the course of my arguments I will also argue that one reason why some people dislike veg*ns is caused by a feeling of moral distress. Lastly I will suggest that my argument involving moral distress might be applicable in more broadly.

First let us consider what is meant by moral distress. Moral distress might be defined as the distress someone feels when she knows the right action to take but is constrained from taking it. Moral distress so defined differs from moral dilemmas which can also cause distress. A moral dilemma is when an agent is unable to choose between two moral options. Someone experiencing moral distress has no doubt about the moral option she should choose. A soldier ordered by her commander to carry out some order which she knows is wrong might suffer from moral distress but she isn’t facing a moral dilemma. In most cases of moral distress the constraining element is externally imposed. However in what follows I will assume that the constraining element might also be internally imposed. An agent feels the pull of morality but is constrained by some of her other non-moral desires. For instance someone might believe being unfaithful to her partner is wrong but the pleasure of infidelity constrains her ability to do what she considers to be right thing to do causing her to suffer from moral distress. In what follows moral distress will refer to internally imposed moral distress.

Let us now consider hating veg*ns and moral distress. Many of the statements by those who dislike veg*ns are directed at the veg*ns personally rather than being focussed on their arguments in favour of veg*nism. Can this direction be morally justified? According to Dhont and Stoeber some meat eaters feel that veg*ns, by not eating meat are expressing moral disapproval of their meat eating. Let us accept that even if most veg*ns don’t explicitly express such disapproval that their behaviour does so implicitly. I now want to argue that this disapproval leads to moral distress and that this distress cannot justify their anger. First let us assume that a meat eater believes veg*ns disapproval is justified. She feels the pull of morality but some of her other desires outweigh this moral pull. She has conflicting desires because she desires to eat meat and act morally and this conflict causes moral distress. She relieves this distress by expressing anger with veg*ns. Her anger is directed at veg*ns because they remind her of her moral inadequacy. However such anger is both misplaced and unjustified. It is misplaced because it fails address the real cause of his distress, her rejection of the pull of morality. She is shooting the messenger and avoiding addressing the message. Her anger is unjustified because she accepts the veg*n case. Secondly let us assume our meat eater doesn’t accept the veg*n case and believes veg*n’s disapproval is unjustified. In order to be consistent she must also believe that the argument used by veg*ns to support not eating meat is flawed. Let us briefly consider the veg*n argument. The veg*n argument has two premises. First a veg*n might suggest that it is wrong to cause any creature to suffer against its will for our pleasure. Secondly she might suggest that meat eaters eat meat for their own pleasure. However the second premise has not always been true. Someone living in a hunter gatherer society might have needed to eat meat in order to survive.  Nonetheless in most parts of the world someone can live a perfectly healthy life without eating meat. It would seem to be difficult to reject the second premise. Let us accept that in most places people don’t have to eat meat and eating meat is a lifestyle choice. It follows that if meat eaters are to reject veg*n’s argument that they must find good reason to reject the first premise. For instance they might argue that animals which are reared in good conditions and are slaughtered humanely don’t suffer against their will. However if a meat eater believes her arguments against the veg*n one is successful it is hard to see what reason she has to be angry with veg*ns. We are usually become angry because of some wrong done to us or others we care about. In the above scenario even if a meat eater believes veg*ns are misguided about the wrongness of eating meat this gives her no reason to believe that they wrong her and other meat eaters, he has no reason to feel angry. Perhaps then meat eaters hate veg*ns it is because deep down they have a lingering belief that their arguments for eating meat are contrived and don’t fully dismiss the pull of the veg*n argument. If meat eaters can’t fully dismiss the veg*n argument then this causes moral distress. This distress causes anger which once again is directed at veg*ns because meat eaters remind them of this distress. However once again such anger is both misplaced unjustified because it doesn’t address the real cause of meat eaters’ moral distress.

Dhont and Stoeber advance a second reason to explain why some meat eaters become angry with veg*ns. Some meat eaters might suggest veg*ns damage society and that this justifies their anger. Their argument contains two premises and might be summarised as follows. Firstly society is valuable and it is wrong to damage it. Secondly veg*ns damage society because they damage social cohesion, collective order and stability. It follows that because veg*n way of life damages society that it is wrong and meat eaters anger can be justified. Let us call this argument the social cohesion argument. Let us accept the second premise. However the early Christian martyrs, Anti-slavery protesters and Suffragettes all damaged the social cohesion of the societies they lived in. Some members of these societies did become angry with Christians, Anti-slavery protesters and Suffragettes. If we are to accept the social cohesion argument then we must conclude that their anger was justified. It seems hard to accept such a conclusion. If we accept the second premise of the social cohesion argument but reject the conclusion then we must reject the first premise. It is hard to see how this might be done but perhaps the first premise might be amended as follows. Society is valuable and we shouldn’t damage the society we live in unless the cause we do so for is just.  It follows that if we damage the social cohesion of the society we live in because it is unjust that far from damaging society we are improving it.  It follows that our anger with people for damaging social cohesion cannot be justified if the cause these people are fighting for is a just one. It further follows the argument about veg*ns damaging social cohesion reverts to our original argument about whether veg*ism can be justified.

However the above argument might be modified. It might be argued even if the fact that veg*ns damage social cohesion doesn’t provide a reason for anger that they also damage the natural order of things and this might justify their anger. This argument claims that veg*nism is unnatural. This is a dangerous argument to make for many people in the past might argued that the patriarchy was part of the natural order. Nonetheless let us accept that it was natural for our ancestors to eat meat. However if we argue from the above premise that it is natural to eat meat means veg*nism is wrong then we must introduce a second premise. We must assume that our nature is permanently fixed. It is easy to call what is necessary for an animal to survive natural when in fact it is just necessary at the time. For instance perhaps it is necessary for hunter gatherers to eat meat in order to survive but meat eating isn’t a necessity for a modern city dweller. If a meat eater isn’t prepared to accept this second premise that our nature is permanently fixed then she has no justification based on our nature to become angry with veg*ns. Once again it would appear that if a meat becomes angry with veg*ns her anger is due to internal moral conflict, moral distress. However for the sake of argument let us assume that our nature is permanently fixed. Nonetheless even if we accept this unlikely assumption there is still no justification for meat eaters becoming angry with veg*ns. Veg*ns might be misguided but they don’t harm meat eaters and so give no cause for anger. Once again if meat eaters become angry with veg*ns and this would appear to be caused by internal moral conflict, moral distress.

In conclusion I accept that most meat eaters don’t accept the pull of the veg*n argument and as a result don’t become angry with veg*ns, they simply accept them.  However I have argued that some meat eaters who do dislike veg*ns do so, not because they feel they are doing something wrong but because they feel the pull of veg*n arguments at least to some degree. I further argued that this pull together with their desire to eat meat causes them to suffer internal conflict or moral distress. I conclude that such anger is both misplaced and unjustified. I further concluded that hating veg*ns both matters and is wrong. I would suggest that moral distress can lead to hate in even more important areas. Some people seem to dislike BLM activists. I would suggest that sometimes this dislike originates in a similar way to the dislike of veg*ns. Those who dislike BLM activists might feel the moral pull of the BLM cause but resist bowing to it because they are unwilling to make sacrifices to aid the cause. This conflict causes moral distress. In fairness some deprived people have very little to sacrifice. Much the same argument might be applied to some cases of misogyny.

1. https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/vegan-resistance

Raw Anger

 

Let us agree that uncontrollable anger is bad for us because it harms us and damages our relationships. Young children often exhibit uncontrollable anger but as they grow up they learn to control it. Uncontrollable anger might be acceptable in toddlers and their parents might even find it amusing but it isn’t acceptable in teenagers and adults. Controlling our anger matters. Agnes Callard points out that when philosophers argue about how we should control our anger they are often talking about refining our raw anger by losing certain elements of our original raw anger rather than simply controlling it. (1) Some limit our anger to indignation or resentment whilst others such as Martha Nussbaum suggest that we should transmute our anger into searching for a way to right the original wrong. Callard argues in doing so they lose the raw feeling of anger. In this posting I want to consider whether our raw feeling of anger matters and whether we have reasons to completely refine our raw anger provided of course this is possible.

What does Callard mean by the dark feeling of raw anger? When we become angry we undergo certain physiological changes. For instance our heartrate increases. Many of these feelings could also apply to rage but it is important not to confuse anger with rage. We can rage against events or animals but it seems our anger is always directed at persons. Whilst our anger is directed at persons it is focussed on some moral wrong. Moral wrong in this context might simply mean a failure in moral concern by others who fail to respect or consider us. Because our feelings are focussed on some wrong these feelings involve a sense of grievance and a desire for revenge. It would be impossible to feel anger without at least some sense of grievance but some can people can feel aggrieved without feeling angry. It follows a sense of grievance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for anger. Revenge seems more central to our idea of anger and is also a necessary but not a sufficient condition for raw anger. Some authors such as Nussbaum use the term payback instead of revenge but this seems to be yet another attempt to refine anger.  For this reason I will continue to use the term revenge when referring to raw anger. In this posting raw anger will be defined as a combination of physiological changes which we interpret negatively together with a sense of grievance against the offender and a desire for revenge.

Let us now consider Callard’s example of someone who robs us making us angry. After our initial angry reaction should we refine it and seek to rectify the situation? It might be suggested that if the situation doesn’t change that we have no reason to do so. However let us assume that after some time the offender makes a sincere apology and recompenses us for our losses. In this situation should we let our raw anger go? Callard presents two arguments to show that we still have reasons to retain our raw anger. The first is her argument for grudges. According to Callard,

“Once we have reason to be angry we have reason to be angry forever” (2)

If we had reason for a grievance that reason remains even if the offender apologises his apology doesn’t remove the reason for our grievance. Of course a sincere apology might give us reason to attach less importance to our grievance and alter our behaviour but according to Callard it doesn’t eradicate the grievance. The example of rape seems to support Callard’s position. Even if the rapist sincerely apologises and vows never to do so again and the victim forgives the rapist her sense of grievance might remain and would remain and seem to be fully justified. Callard’s second argument is the argument for revenge. According to Callard,

“The Argument for Revenge is simply that revenge is how we hold one another morally responsible” (3)

We do so according to Callard by,

“you make my wronging of you into a general principle and then “educate” me by imposing it on me.” (4)

This argument might be roughly summarised as follows. A harms B. It follows that A believes it is good for him to harm B. If he thought it bad for him he wouldn’t do so. B makes A’s behaviour into a norm. B harms A and B learns harming others is bad. Of course the possibility of revenge might simply deter someone from wrongdoing but revenge can also teach an offender that his actions are wrong. Let us accept Callard’s two arguments for retaining our raw anger.

However even if we accept that we have some reasons to retain our raw anger this doesn’t automatically mean we should do so. We might have even stronger reasons to refine our anger. A permanently angry society would be a violent one. Let us first consider our desire for revenge. We are no longer a tribal society so it might be suggested that we should let go of our desire for revenge in order to create a less violent society. Two objections might be raised to this suggestion. Firstly it might be objected that if we do so that we damage both our self-respect and the respect others have for us. We might be seen by others and ourselves as pushovers. This would occur if we simply repressed or lost all anger. However if we refine rather than simply lose our anger we might retain our respect. According to Nussbaum if we shift our focus from how we feel to the cause of our anger our focus also shifts to a set of projects aimed at improving both society and the offender. (5) If we refine our anger by losing our desire for revenge then we aren’t acting passively, shouldn’t be seen as pushovers and the objection fails. Secondly it might be objected that if we refine our anger by losing our desire for revenge that we deprive the offender of some benefit. Callard argues that if we give up our desire for revenge that we would be failing to hold someone as morally responsible and failing to educate him as to what is morally required. In response I would suggest that our desire for revenge is mostly a desire to educate the offender that we aren’t pushovers, to teach him a lesson in moral behaviour. Nonetheless let us agree with Callard that our desire for revenge also holds someone as responsible for his actions and educates him to some degree about what is required morally by society. In a tribal society we might well have good reason to pursue revenge. However we don’t live in a tribal society and any educational benefits of revenge might be achieved by other means. For instance it is perfectly possible to withhold trust without feeling any need for revenge. Altering someone’s status within society by the withdrawal of trust might educate an offender about what is morally required. It follows even if revenge might deliver some benefits that these benefits might be more effectively by other means and that the possible benefits delivered by revenge do not give us reason not to refine our raw anger.

According to Callard the holding of a grievance or grudge is an essential element of anger. I have argued above that the withdrawal of trust might achieve much the same benefits as revenge. Let us accept that if we lose our desire for revenge but retain our sense of grievance that we have refined our anger to some degree. However some would argue that we should go further in refining our anger by also letting go of our sense of grievances. Let us accept that Callard is correct in her assertion that once we have a grievance that we have reason for our grievance forever. It follows it might be impossible to refine our anger further. In the real world it would be very difficult for someone who has been raped to give up her sense of grievance even if she can give up her desire for revenge. According to Nussbaum traditional anger can transmute into transitional anger,

“quickly puts itself out of business, in that even the residual focus on punishing the offender is soon seen as part of a set of projects for improving both offenders and society.” (6)

If we accept Callard is correct then raw anger cannot be totally refined. Nonetheless it might be possible to move on. Even if the rape victim cannot let go of her grievance she can take part in a set of projects for improving both the offender and society, she can move on by moderating her behaviour whilst retaining her sense of grievance. Our behaviour isn’t determined by a single reason but by a set of reasons. Individual reasons within this set are weighted, some are more important than others. We can retain a reason to act whilst the weight given to this reason is changed by additions to the set of our reasons. If the rapist genuinely apologises and seeks to reform the rape victim might give less weight to her grievance whilst still retaining it.

In the above it has been assumed above that Callard is correct when she argues that if a victim has a reason for a grievance that she has that reason forever. I now want to argue that if a victim has a reason for a grievance that she doesn’t always have this reason forever. Callard assumes that that a victim has a grievance because of some past event and that she has reason for this grievance forever because the past cannot be changed. Of course the past cannot be changed but a grievance isn’t simply concerned with some past event but must of necessity be directed at someone. To make this clearer let us return to our rape example. Let us assume that the rapist is an adult but has the mental age of a five year old. In this situation the victim has been wronged but would she be justified in holding a grievance with the offender? I would suggest she won’t. It would seem that whether someone can have a grievance with some offender depends on the internal make-up of the offender.  I have argued elsewhere that emotions serve as alarms by maintaining our focus on some potential danger.  A grievance maintains our focus on the fact that someone might harm us. If we accept the above then a victim may have a reason to maintain a grievance with an offender because it alerts her to danger but that if the offender changes the danger might cease and she loses her reason to maintain her grievance. Let us once again return to our rape victim. Let us assume that the victim has been violently raped and that her grievance alerts her to the dangers posed by the offender. Let us now assume at some later date the offender has a severe stroke which leaves him in a vegetative state. In this new situation the victim might still be unhappy and hurt but she has lost her reason to hold onto her grievance with the offender because it maintains her focus on danger. It follows that Callard isn’t correct when she argues that all victims who have a reason for a grievance have those reasons forever. All victims have been wronged forever but not all victims have reasons to hold onto their grievances forever.

How do we differentiate between those victims who have reason to maintain their grievances and those who don’t? I have argued above the focus of our anger is on some wrong but that it is directed at the offender. I have further argued that if the offender changes in some radical way that we sometimes have reason to lose a grievance. Lastly I argued that the reason we have to maintain a grievance against an offender because it focusses on our need for caution in our dealings with him. It follows if the offender changes so that we no longer have to be so cautious in dealing with him that we lose our reason for our grievance. In my above example because the rapist has a stroke and poses no further threat to the victim she loses her reason to maintain her sense of grievance. In the above example it is clear that the offender has changed but in more general cases how do we know the offender has changed and that as a result we have lost our reason for maintaining our grievance with him? Perhaps if the offender makes a sincere apology and takes steps to repair the damage done then we should try to lose our sense of grievance. However if the offender doesn’t change we have reason to maintain our grievance and shouldn’t unconditionally forgive him.

 

1. Agnes Callard, 2020, On Anger, Boston Review Forum, page 15.
2. Callard, page 18
3. Callard, page 18
4. Callard , page 19
5. Martha Nussbaum, 2015, Transitional Anger. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, page 51.
6. Nussbaum, page 51

Games, Sport and Drugs

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.

1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, 65.
2. Danaher John, 2019, Automation and Utopia, Harvard University, page 231
3. Danaher, page 234
4. Bennett Helm, 2010 Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford University Press
5. Gwen Bradford, 2015, Achievement, Oxford University Press
6. Danaher, chapter 7.