total ethics

critical thinking

thinking about thinking

considering if our thinking abides by the criteria of good sense and logic

critical thinking requires

evaluating arguments that support the claims we are considering and weighing them against those that support alternative views

expressing a belief in a declarative sentence

is when the belief becomes a claim/assesrtion or statement

objective claim

whether its true or false is dependent on whether people think it’s true or false

subjective claim

relative claim

relativism

truth is realtive to a standard set by a given culture, meaning there is no universal truth

moral relativism

issue

whenever a claim is called into question then an issue has been raised

when you think critically about a claim

you make it an issue

Biases

common reasons for bad reasoning/conclusion

• result of external/internal influence

• logic vs emotions

belief bias

evaluating reasoning by how believable its conclusion is

confirmation bias

a tendency to attach more weight to considerations that support our views

availability heuristic

assigning a probability to an event based on how easily or frequently it is thought of

false consensus effect

assuming our opinion and those held by people around us are shared by society at large

Bandwagon effect

the tendency to align our beliefs with those of other peoples

negativity bias

attaching more weight to negative information than to positive info

Loss aversion

being more strongly motivated to avoid a loss than to accrue a gain

in-group bias

agreeing with the opinions of ppl we associate with

Fundamental attribution error

having one understanding of the behaviour of people in the in group and another for poeple not in the in group

obedience to authority

a tendency to comply with instructions from an authority

Overconfidence effect

a cognitive bias that leads us to overestimate what percentage of our answers on a subject are correct

better than average illusion

a self deception cognitive bias that leads us to overestimate our own ability relative to those of others

truth

• has no universally accepted answer

• a claim is true if it is free from error

knowledge

if you believe something is so, have an argument taht is beyond a reasonable doubt, and have no reason to think you are mistaken = it is known

ethics meaning

ethos

• character, concerns, questions of good, right, duty obligation and virtue

• a question of how life should be, not what it is

a ethical decision is justified if

if it is supported by the best available reasons impartially applied

messy morality

• conflict between principles

• conflict between ppl

• uncertainty of application

• requirement of judgement

Aristotelian Virtue ethics

type of virtue ethics that is based on the teachings of artistotle

• focused on virtues

virtues (according to aristotle)

habits or dispositions that lead to good and flourishing life.

• formed through practice and repeition

ultimate goal of life : aristotle

reaching eudaimonia (happiness) through the interrelated virtues

deontology

• kant

• believes that rule and laws dictate the rightness and wrongness of behaviour as long as they are dealt in good faith and treats ppl as ends, not means

utilitarianism

• mills

• Believes that the right decision is the one that maximizes happiness (utility) and reduces suffering

existentialism

• believes that there is no unverisal meaning to reality beyond the meaning that each one of us projects, and thus one’s mortalityis a reflection of one’s authentic self while acting in good faith by accepting the truth of absolute freedom

• values of authenticity and good faith

the four principles of biomedical ethics

• respect for autonomy

• non maleficience

• beneficence

• justice

Respect for autonomy

a norm of respecting the decision making capacities of autonomous persons

non maleficience

a norm of avoiding the causation of harm

• *?

benefience

a group of norms for providing benefits and balancing benefits against risks and costs

justice

a group of norms for distributing benefits, risks and costs fairly

Formalism

the rules are what make it the sport.

Broad Internalism (interpretivism)

• sporting competition is a mutually acceptable quest for excellence through challenge

• definition

arguments consists of two parts

the premise and the conclusion

the premise

is intended to provide a reason for accepting the conclusion

a statement by itself is

not an argument

an emphasis statement is

not an argument

proof vs support

deductive argument

• a type of argument in which the premise or premises, if true, prove or demonstrate the conclusion

validity

follows the correct form of a deductive argument (the premsise would make the conclusion true, however it may not be true in this case) but if there were true then the conclusion would be true

a good deductive argument

has to be true and valid

two types of deductive reasoning

• categorical reasoning

• sentential reasoning

Categorical reasoning

• all/no.some

• validity depends on categorical relationships

Categorical reasoning involves statements about categories (or “sets”) and figuring out what conclusions follow. These statements often look like:

• All A are B

• No A are B

• Some A are B

• Some A are not B

sentential (propositional) reasoning

• not/and/or/if-then

• validity depends on logical form

when is a deductive argument valid

• if the premises cannot be true while the conclusion is false

• validity depends on form not truth

• a valid argument with true premesis is a sound argument

valid but not sound

uValid but not sound (false premise, true conclusion can still happen):

•Premise: All Olympic sports are winter sports. (false)

•Premise: Figure skating is an Olympic sport. (true)

•Conclusion: Figure skating is a winter sport. (true)
→ Form is valid (if all Olympic sports were winter, then figure skating would be winter). But it’s not sound because a premise is false.

invalid

uInvalid (true premises, false conclusion is possible):

•Premise: All sprinters are athletes. (true)

•Premise: Some swimmers are athletes. (true)

•Conclusion: Therefore, some swimmers are sprinters. (doesn’t follow; could be false)
→ Invalid form; premises don’t force the conclusion.

inductive argument

• an argument where the premise supports the conclusion but does not demonstrate or prove it

SUpport for the conclusion in inductive argument

can vary in degree and can be described as stronger or weaker.

an argument is stronger if (inductive)

it raises the probability of the conclusion more than a weaker argument

unstated premises

• premises that are common and assumed

unstated conclusions

uArguments can also have unstated conclusions.
Example: “Stacy drives a Porsche.”
Unstated conclusion: She is rich or her parents are.

In common law, what is the highest standard of proof?

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

How does "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" compare to deductive demonstration?

It is a lower standard; deductive demonstration corresponds more to "beyond any possible doubt."

In logic, when is a proposition considered demonstrated?

When it is the conclusion of a sound argument with true premises, making it impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Inference to the best explanation (IBE)

an argument that explains the cause of something (seeks the simplest and most likely)

IBE is often used to determine

the cause of something based on the best explanation or evidence available

ibe is considered as

• abduction and is a form of inductive reasoning

• is used to support a conclusion, not to prove it

example of ibe

•determining that sleeping on a certain mattress caused a backache, or that a philosophy course caused improved test scores.

inductive, deductive and abductive in the picture

ethos is

• an appeal to the credibility or trustworthiness of the speaker or writer

• position the writer as an authority on the subject

Pathos is

• an appeal to the audiences emotions to create a connection with the audience and to evoke feelings in order to persuade them

logos is

an appeal to reason or logic

• an attempt to use facts, stats and evidence to make a logical argument and to persuade the audience through logical reasoning

how to understand arguments

• find the conclusion

• locate the reasons (premises) for the conclusion

• are they valid, are they true?

Early anti doping efforts

• initial concerns in the 1960s led to the IOC’s first prohibited list defining doping broadly as unnatural performance enhancement

escalation and scandal of anti doping

• in the 70s and 80s anabolic steriods addition and scandals ike east germany’s doping program begun to raise awareness

Three criteria test

WADA prohibits substances or methods based on performance enhancement, health risk or spirit of sport violations

• violations of any two criteria is sufficient

ethical challenges with spirit of sport

ambiguous

intrinsic good in sport

• sport possesses intrinsic goods realized through adherence to rules

Ethical Issues of Doping

doping bypasses sport constraints, reducing challenge and compromising the nature of genuine acheivement

integrity and mastery of sports and doping

shortcuts undermine mastery and erode excellence

• authentic victories come from effort and skill, not artifical advantages

Naturalness debate

• naturalistic fallacy

• cultural bias and merit

• moderate naturalism approach

• integration of values and techbology

Naturalistic fallacy

assuming natural means ethically good

• naturalisitic fallacy

culture bias and merit

cultural biases rooted in protestant work ethic emphasize earned merit influencing views on naturalness in sports

Moderate Naturalism approach

• moderate naturalism treats naturalness as a heuristic, balancing nature with fairness, health and autonomy

Ambiguity of the spirit of sport

• vague clause

• historical reactionary origin

• ethical dilution

• evidence based reform

vague clause critisim

• the spirit of sport lacks clear and operation definition leading to inconsistent application and undermined legitamace

Historical Reactionary Origin

The concept arose as a reactive measure during doping crises rather than through deliberate principled framework development

Ethical Dilution Concerns

Simplifying complex ethics into a ‘bag of virtues’ dilutes coherence and weakens the ethical foundation of the clause.

Calls for Evidence-Based Reform

Experts propose replacing or supplementing the clause with explicit, evidence-based standards focusing on fairness and health.

athlete autonomy and doping—privacy

Strict liability and whereabouts monitoring raise ethical concerns by infringing on athletes' privacy and autonomy.

athlete autonomy and doping—Governance and Representation

Lack of athlete representation in policy creation worsens governance deficits and impacts due process fairness.

athlete autonomy and doping—Calls for Proportionality and Transparency

Critics emphasize proportional sanctions, stakeholder input, and transparency to protect rights and fairness in anti-doping.

EVIDENCE GAPS AND PROPORTIONALITY

Lack of Robust Evidence Many substances on the prohibited list lack strong evidence of performance enhancement or health risks, questioning their bans. Proportionality Concerns Only a minority of banned classes show clear efficacy, raising concerns about the proportionality of restrictions. Policy Innovations Innovative policies like sunset clauses and conditional approvals can improve evidence-based anti-doping regulation. Enhancing Legitimacy Evidence-driven approaches promote athlete welfare and integrity, avoiding moralistic or political agendas

Anti doping argument

• preserve internal goods

• health and safety

Preserving internal goods

• protect internal goods: the core values and excellence acheivable only through skill and effort

• maintain fair competition: avoiding pharmacological shortcuts ensures victories reflect effort and respect

• upholding ethical integrity :Anti-doping sustains sport’s cultural and ethical integrity, fostering virtues like perseverance and fairness.

Anti-Doping : Health and Safety

• Health Risk Mitigation: Banning doping substances reduces physiological harm risks and protects athlete health in competitive environments.

• Prevention of exploitation: Anti-doping policies prevent exploitation by reducing pressure on athletes to engage in unsafe practices

• Ethical Justification :Anti-doping aligns with ethical principles prioritizing nonmaleficence and harm prevention in sports

Pro-doping:

• Autonomy and Adult Consent

• Safer thorough regulation

Autonomy, consent and doping (pro)

Respect for Autonomy:Advocates argue that informed adults should freely choose performance enhancement accepting associated risks.

Challenge to External Prohibitions: Prohibitions impose external values that undermine athletes' self determination and freedom of choice.

Regulated Legalization Benefits: Legalization under regulations can respect autonomy while minimizing harm and ensuring safety

Aspiration and Excellence Enhancement aligns with sport's ethos, enabling pursuit of excellence by all available means

.

Safer through regulation - prodoping

Risks of Prohibition: Ban on doping pushes enhancement underground, causing unsafe practices and black-market exploitation.

Harm-Reduction Approach : Legalizing certain substances under medical supervision reduces health risks while maintaining fair competition.

Physiological Doping Concept: Controlled enhancement within safety limits balances innovation with athlete welfare and ethical oversight.

Evidence-Based Oversight Managing doping pragmatically emphasizes science and safety over moral absolutism and bans

Anti Anti doping crituques : governance and transperancy

• governance flaws: Current anti-doping systems suffer from opaque decisions, inconsistent enforcement, and limited stakeholder inclusion

• Critique of ideals and fairness:Reliance on ambiguous ideals like the 'Spirit of Sport' leads to arbitrary bans and fairness issues under strict liability

• reform proposals:Reforms suggest publishing justifications, including athlete voices, and applying proportional sanctions for legitimacy

medical necessity vs fairness (TUES)

• potential performance enhancement

• ensure consistent criteria

• some treatments like beta-2 agonists may protect health but provide performance advantage so we need clear standards

BETA-2 and TRT

• vital for asthma patients but may increase performance

• challenges such as monitoring

• need evidence based policies to balance therapeutic needs with integrity