Metaphysics sport essay

Jordan sport scenario

Intro

The retributive justice system developed in the Australian sports authority, raises significant philosophical questions about free will, causation, and moral responsibility. By arguing that athletes are ultimately responsible for what enters their bodies, regardless of if they understand what they are consuming, the system assumes that individuals act freely when not under coercion. This perspective aligns with free will, and risks ignoring any pre-determined causes that reduce moral responsibility, thus creating a tension between individual freedom and causation. Using the Hegelian dialectic, it is possible to explore whether these retributive systems neglect causal laws and pre-determined actions, or if human agency can still coexist within a causally structured world.

Thesis

Thesis- From a deterministic perspective, Baron d’Holbach would immediately assert that athletes’ moral responsibility cannot exist within a system governed by causal laws, critiquing the sports authority’s decision. As a hard determinist, d’Holbach asserts that human behaviour is governed by biology, environmental factors, nurture, and other prior causes, meaning humans, as part of the natural world, are therefore susceptible to the same causal laws as everything else in nature. Applied to sporting events, Jordan’s sleeplessness, severe anxiety, family pressures, and school demands are prior events that pre-determine his actions, meaning D’Holbach would argue he has no agent causation. Even if taken unknowingly, these athletes cannot be held accountable and face moral responsibility from a hard determinist perspective, as their behaviour is merely a result of event causation. From this perspective, the sports authority’s decision appears to be rational, as it attempts to discourage rule breaking to prevent further harm in the future. However, d’Holbach’s hard determinist position creates tension. If Jordan could never choose otherwise, punishing him for actions out of his control becomes hard to justify morally. Though d’Holbach would encourage the sports association to not punish individuals for their actions as they have no agency, his position also risks treating humans as predictable objects rather than morally autonomous human beings.

Antithesis

Antithesis- In contrast, John Locke, as a supporter of free will, would support the consequences for athletes who take substances, even if unknowingly, as he believes that freedom depends on humans’ ability to reason, reflect, and choose between possible actions. Locke would argue that Jordan did have this rational agency, as he decided to remain ignorant, whilst not under coercion and acting according to reason. As Jordan had the capacity to suspend his desires to consider before acting, Locke acknowledges that individuals are influenced by external pressures, yet they maintain moral responsibility, because they possess the ability to suspend desires and act according to reason. Applied to sporting environments, Locke would agree with the sports committee for punishing Jordan, as he ultimately possessed the rational capacity to look at the label, providing him the freedom to have chosen alternate decisions. Though Jordan did not understand the drug, Locke would argue he used his free will to remain ignorant by choosing to trust the adults around him rather than seeking clarification. Whilst Locke’s position preserves individual liberty and fairness within the sports authority, it also raises practical concerns. He risks assuming that when individuals make rational decisions, despite feeling they do not have alternative possibilities, their decisions are made freely. Accordingly, Jordan did not know what substance he consumed and felt as though he had no other alternative than to remain ignorant, due to his trust in adults around him. Bypassing the metaphysical truth of Jordan’s actions, the sports authority adopts a deterministic approach out of practical utility. Because they cannot read his mind to verify his intent, they must treat his body as a predictable machine where substance consumption automatically equates to Jordan wanting to take it. Locke’s emphasis on freedom thus presents a tension between moral responsibility and pre-determined events in the sports authority.

Synthesis

Synthesis- A synthesis of these positions can be found in compatibilists, such as David Hume. Hume acknowledges that human behaviour is shaped by causal forces but still proposes that moral responsibility can exist when actions emerge from internal desires, intentions, and reasoning, as opposed to external coercion. From this perspective, Jordan’s freedom does not automatically mean that his actions arose without the influence of causal events. From a compatibilist position, instead, freedom depends on whether individuals act according to their own internal desires and character. Applied to Jordan’s situation, though he made a decision with rational capacity to remain ignorant about the substance he was taking, his choice does not automatically determine moral responsibility, as he felt as if he did not have alternative possibilities, and was not acting upon internal desires. This creates an important ethical limit for moral responsibility in sporting environments. Communicating the problems with substance use in sports may be justified if the goal is to minimise harm. However, disqualification and punishment based upon the assumption that Jordan’s action arose from internal desires and the feeling of alternative possibilities, risks neglecting causal laws and prior events that influence Jordan’s actions. Punishing athletes for substance consumption in sporting environments intensifies long-standing philosophical tensions surrounding freedom and causation rather than completely resolving them, highlighting how modern sporting associations automatically assume free will to bypass questioning causation. The presence of drugs is treated as a deterministic fact, whilst ignoring Jordan’s true intent. A compatibilist approach encourages considering whether punishment from sports societies simply exposes these tensions, or if these institutions deliberately ignore the complexity of human causation to prioritise efficiency over true moral justice.

Conclusion

Ultimately, punishment by the sports association for athletes who use substances, even if unknowingly, challenges society’s understanding of moral responsibility by suggesting human behaviour is entirely punishable if people’s actions are made rationally and without external coercion. However, this philosophical assumption alone cannot completely remove the important influence of causal laws, pre-determined events, and also the feeling of freedom and alternate possibilities whilst acting according to reason.