Views on Doping Within a Moral Relativist Framework

Abstract

Doping continues to be a long-standing concern in professional sports. A first question that arises is whether doping falls within the athlete's freedom to do what they can to enhance their performance. After all there is non-equality in athletes’ physical state and drugs could be understood as another way of its enhancement in the same way that natural ways do that through training, lifting weights, etc. A second issue arising is whether or not is necessary to put limits on the research concerning these substances. So, two aspects of freedom are raised: (a) the freedom of the athlete, and (b) the freedom of the scientist. In this paper, these two sides are discussed on the basis of the theory of Moral Relativism. According to Moral Relativism the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of a person or group. For (a) based on the theory, the athlete may consider that there is no absolute truth about doping, such as e.g., that it is wrong and not beneficial for sports, athletes, etc. The morally rightness of doping depends on the moral character of each athlete, the association or the country he/she represents. For b), a physician might argue that research in the field is not morally wrong. This is because it could potentially lead to cures for several diseases and even to the augmentation of human capabilities. Both questions are attempted to be answered through selected interview answers of athletes, trainers and physicians/pharmacologists.