Technological, pharmaceutical and behavioural doping?

knedlicky

Rick Chasey wrote:

morals shmorals.
This is competition. There are no morals in competition.

I agree. I remember when a work colleague, concerned he wouldn’t be able to defeat a management-superior in a 5 km run in which they had both entered, a female acquaintance (also taking part in the run) seriously said ‘Well if you feel you can’t easily beat him, just cheat somehow’. She obviously had the right approach to competition!

My colleague, however, didn’t feel able to do so (although there was the possibility of taking a short-cut along the route), because he felt uncomfortable with the idea. And that’s perhaps because he unconsciously adhered to what philosopher Kant thought about moral behaviour.

Wrt morals, Kant didn’t think that the final result was the most important aspect of an action (i.e. winning), but how the person involved felt, while carrying out the action (short-cut/doping/oxygen tent) in respect of the desired result.
In modern cycling, this means it’s very hard to judge how morally guilty any doper might be, because it should be based on the rider’s feelings at the time of manipulation, not on subsequent results.

Kant also morally excused certain actions (doping) if done as part of one’s duty (to provide results to one’s employers/sponsors). Few riders have ever admitted to doping because of pressure from team managers/sponsors, but I suspect, just like on many shop-floor/office environments, such pressures exist if often veiled.

To dwell only on riders is also wrong. How the modern equivalents of Manolo Saiz think/behave with a team is relevant. In football, managers are highly scutinised - a greater degree of manager-scrutiny in cycling would be good overall for cycling.

Wily-Quixote

I don't know how doping would go with kant's categorical imperative....

andrewjoseph

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

Morality, at least the universal, 'these things are right and these are wrong and they are so for every crunt' sort is a figment of your (you know who you are, whoever you are) poorly imagination. Can you reduce this delusion - ha, wait, that's not helping - I mean, your heartfelt belief that some things are Just Wrong, etc, to a non-arbitrary criteria? Don't answer that, I'm just fu cking with you. You can't, 'cause it's impossible.
...

All societies have laws, even if some of them are called 'taboo's'. Most, if not all, societies (that i am aware of), state it is wrong to kill another for no reason, have sex with a child, marry siblings.

I think there are many more, but the ones stated above are not just a figment of my imagination.

And your use of swear words in this manner does you no favours.

Daz555

frenchfighter wrote:

I dislike Sky for exactly reasons you mention, among others. I have said it before and I will say it again, there is a difference between God given talent and developed talent.

Leaving aside the God/fairytale nonsense I don't see any difference at all.

In fact I'd go one step further - the distinction does not exist.

Abdoujaparov

Those features that came out during the Olympics about genetic doping made me think a little about the arms race between the dopers and the testers and how it's going to turn out.

I wonder if in 10, 20, 30 years' time we'll concede defeat on genetic doping (seems it could eventually be developed to be undetectable) or if the collection of new born babies' body tissue will become standard practice!

Outsider art by Loan

andrewjoseph wrote:

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

Morality, at least the universal, 'these things are right and these are wrong and they are so for every crunt' sort is a figment of your (you know who you are, whoever you are) poorly imagination. Can you reduce this delusion - ha, wait, that's not helping - I mean, your heartfelt belief that some things are Just Wrong, etc, to a non-arbitrary criteria? Don't answer that, I'm just fu cking with you. You can't, 'cause it's impossible.
...

All societies have laws, even if some of them are called 'taboo's'. Most, if not all, societies (that i am aware of), state it is wrong to kill another for no reason, have sex with a child, marry siblings.

I think there are many more, but the ones stated above are not just a figment of my imagination.

I couldn't decide whether to use the sound-word 'woosh', the rush of wind as my argument went sailing over your head, or 'ker-thunk', or something like that, and write about my failure to penetrate your closed mind. So here's this meta stuff. Having thought about it some more, though, I've decided ker-thunk, or something like that, would be inappropriate: it conveys the meeting at some speed of a heavy, blunt, solid, not particularly resonant object with a like object. My argument, metaphorically, possesses those qualities, but your dome... I'm very doubtful. 'Clang', for instance, would be better. It suggests an echo.

And your use of swear words in this manner does you no favours.

Child. :roll:

But can you imagine the wealth of favours I would have done myself if I'd said 'onomatopoeia'?

andrewjoseph

Outsider art by Loan wrote:

..
But can you imagine the wealth of favours I would have done myself if I'd said 'onomatopoeia'?

Dunno, wot's it mean mister?

Wily-Quixote

Argumentum verbosum. If you can't present a convincing argument use obtuse, recondite language to give the impression that youre arguing from authority.

andrewjoseph

Yeah, i thought he hadn't explained his objections to my statement either. A lot of belaboured insults but no help in explaining why i was wrong.

knedlicky

Wily-Quixote wrote:

I don't know how doping would go with kant's categorical imperative....

Surely doping doesn’t fit with Kant's acceptable ‘categorical imperative’ so long as those practising it don’t regard it as something everyone should be able to do to the same degree, and thus then keep it secret to themselves? (Therein there is a LA aspect)

Although, I admittedly behave the same when sneaking a Mars bar.

Wily-Quixote

Kned,
That was my point entirely.

AndrewJoseph,
The point art was making was about moral relevantism, his initial argument was obscured by flippancy and his reply to you was supercilious. The point he was trying to make was about morals Themselves and whether they have objective meaning. It's an academic point really unless you're some form of nihilist I suppose.

andrewjoseph

Wily-Quixote wrote:

Kned,
That was my point entirely.

AndrewJoseph,
The point art was making was about moral relevantism, his initial argument was obscured by flippancy and his reply to you was supercilious. The point he was trying to make was about morals Themselves and whether they have objective meaning. It's an academic point really unless you're some form of nihilist I suppose.

Thank you.