Harm, risk, and doping analogies: A counter-response to Kious
- First Online:
- 163 Downloads
Brent Kious has objected to our previous criticism of his views on doping, maintaining that we, by and large, misrepresented his position. In this response, we strengthen our original misgivings, arguing that (1) his views on risk of harm in sport are either uncontroversially true (not inconsistent with the views of many doping opponents) or demonstrably false (attribute to doping opponents an overly simplistic view), (2) his use of analogies (still) indicates an oversimplification of many issues surrounding the question of doping in sports, and (3) his doping analogies are insufficiently precise to support his conclusions.
KeywordsSports ethics Doping Moral methodology Sports Performance enhancement
- 3.Kious, Brent M. 2010. Dispelling a few false-positives: A reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. doi:10.1007/s11017-011-9173-1.
- 4.World Anti-Doping Agency. 2009. World anti-doping code. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2011.
- 5.Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar