Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett

Frías, Francisco Javier López; McNamee, Mike

doi:10.1080/17511321.2019.1583273

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, P15 is blind to the indirect benefits of not banning ND -benefits which also seem relevant to whether, all things considered, we should use the instrument of law to avoid the imposition of some presumably relatively minor costs on others. 35 One such indirect advantage of legalising ND is that it would reduce the possibility of criminals profiting from ND, with the state profiting instead from the legalisation because a white market will increase tax revenues compared to a black market, resulting in a lesser imposition of costs on taxpayers. Another indirect benefit is that legalisation would minimise the possibilities of some athletes coming into contact with criminal environments, a contact that might lead to bad networks and more crime, which again would impose costs on others such as victims and taxpayers.…”

Section: P14mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Penedo et al [41]. 35 Admittedly, the benefits might accrue to different people than those on whom the costs are imposed, and that would be morally significant according to some moral views, e.g., contractualism. that fewer are punished, which has the immediate advantage that, all else being equal, it could save money on testing athletes, investigations and court cases.…”

Section: P14mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a critic of Corlett et al[16] and Corlett[34] on whether athletes' choice of doing sport is a voluntary choice, see Frias and McNamee[35] 27. Admittedly, this problem is mitigated to the effect that Corlett et al think that the principle should only be applied against a background of fair distribution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neuro-Doping and Fairness

Petersen

Lippert‐Rasmussen

2020

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. athletes is by banning certain substances and methods and by punishing those who do dope. Also, WADA's Ethics Panel alludes to the value of fairness when they state: "Fairness and Justice: Although individuals are fundamentally different and not equal, and the circumstances under which athletes might have to train are not the same (e.g. due to differences in resources), efforts should be made in sport to provide equal opportunity and to facilitate fair competition" [24]. We take it that the following argument -the unfair inequality of opportunity argument -captures the essence of the objection to permitting ND, inter alia, in statements such as those just quoted: P1: Fairness requires that athletes have equal opportunities to win. P2: The use of ND by some athletes creates greater inequality in the opportunities to win. P3: If P1 and P2, then the use of ND by athletes should be banned. 8 C1: Thus, the use of ND by athletes should be banned.Unfortunately, as we will now show, all three premises of this argument are problematic.Starting with P1, we note that, rightly or not, many reject it, because they think that fairness permits some inequalities of opportunity in sports. In the world of sports, we praise and celebrate the individuals who have won in the genetic and social lottery [25,26]. 9 10 Athletes who win, and whom we think should be allowed to win in sport consistently with fairness, often possess superior athletic qualities as the result of random genetic factors, e.g., those determining muscle mass, height, speed, endurance, mental strength, for which the athletes themselves is not responsible. Moreover, becoming a top athlete takes more than winning in the genetic lottery. It also helps to win in the social lottery. It is a fact that the best athletein many sports typically come from rich countries, or from an elite in a poor country. 11 You can be extremely talented and still never get the opportunity to win an Olympic medal if you grow up in a country without access to good training facilities, skilled trainers and resources for participating in international competitions. Some sports-economic studies indicate that in order for a country to achieve one Olympic gold medal at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, the country had to invest around 37 million Australian dollars (measured by the value of an

show abstract

Section: P14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: P14mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neuro-Doping and Fairness

Petersen

Lippert‐Rasmussen

2020

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

American Tackle Football, Brain Trauma, and the Ethical Implications of Cultural Coercion

Berg

2023

Kinesiology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade and a half, scientific discoveries brought to light the prospect that tackle football causes serious brain trauma. This raised questions about the sport’s ethical permissibility. By employing scientific, philosophical, sociological, and historical findings, I consider whether it is ethically defensible to permit adults to play the game. My approach works within the bounds of both the ethical theory of liberalism and incorporates several sociological theories focused on gender. I propose that external cultural influences deserve some credit for shaping decisions to participate in America’s most popular spectator sport and contend that societies must establish genuinely pluralistic and inclusive gender ideologies and structures to ensure football’s permissibility. In particular, I suggest that to ensure that tackle football is ethical for adults, the presence and prominence of gender pluralism and inclusivity in youth settings are necessary.

show abstract

The Gridiron’s Ethical Striping: Threads of Tackle Football’s Moral Permissibility

López Frías

2024

Kinesiology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I examine the ethical landscape surrounding tackle football, exploring the moral permissibility of the sport and the myriad ethical considerations it entails. This examination comprises the use of an ethical decision-making framework to analyze four key aspects: relevant empirical facts, affected parties, salient moral values/disvalues, and potential options. In pondering these aspects, I identify the ethical conflicts arising from factual disagreements, conflicting interests, and divergent values/disvalues concerning players’ decision to partake in gridiron football. In addition to emphasizing the importance of understanding and addressing such aspects and conflicts to devise potential solutions, I contend that ethical issues related to the permissibility of football ultimately stem from value-related conflicts, highlighting the necessity of examining and reconciling conflicting moral principles.

show abstract

Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett

Abstract: Brain-injured footballers, voluntary choice, and social goods. A reply to Corlett.

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

Neuro-Doping and Fairness

Neuro-Doping and Fairness

American Tackle Football, Brain Trauma, and the Ethical Implications of Cultural Coercion

The Gridiron’s Ethical Striping: Threads of Tackle Football’s Moral Permissibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About