When an athlete uses an performance enhancing drug, would that make a difference if they stopped using the drug and started using more technologically advanced equipment? If so, what would the drastic change in performance and competition be?
I personally do not think it would make a difference because both drugs and advanced equipment are both the same cheating in some way. It would change any sport game dramatically and would be a disadvantage to the players who don't cheat and wouldn't allow people to "work hard" to get a spot because you would have people that maybe are not as good that take the drugs or equipment and end up being equal to those players who do put the work in.
Is the type of deception used in flopping and diving unethical? What makes it different from the legal, creative forms of deception we applaud in sport?
I do not think an athlete should be awarded a trophy just for participation even if they lose, because even at a young age children need to learn that losing is a part of life. It will also show the children/people that actually won that it feels good to win.
All games are competitive. The main goal for every sport is to win, or to place as high as possible. Even if you can't win, nobody wants to lose. When losing is involved, everybody is competitive.
Some theorists regard some theories of impartiality, such as those of Rawls and Hare, as too abstract to apply or to work with. Can we truely reason as if we did not know our place in society, as Rawls suggested, or fully grasp the perspective of others, as Hare's approach seemingly requires?
In Chapter One, it talks about how referees must officiate according to the rules and not side with his or her favorite team. Do you think this goes on in professional or collegiate sports? Even if it isn't favoring, do you think the NCAA or any professional sports league pays off the refs in favor of a team with more media attention?
The chapter talks about a nhl hockey shoot out. They say they use it as a way to end a game rather than let it drag on. They make the case that this isn't a fair way to end a game because it turns it into a skills competition rather than account for all aspects of hockey my question is what would be a proper alternative to ending the game rather than a shoot out.
I don't think there would be a better alternative to end a hockey game, but if there would be a different alternative, I would suggest playing another period.
Do you think being too competitive in a sport could cause an athlete to do some things that may get them into some trouble trying to be the best in their sport?
I believe that all sports do have a sense of competivness. Even when I play a game like chess their is the desire to win. I don't think anyone ever likes to lose.
I believe if you quit the team it was for a reason, so therefore you let down your team and should not have the right to come back. In most cases no one can stop you from coming back to a team unless you have to try out and the coach purposely cuts you.
If you have a reason to quit the team, and your team stands behind you on your decision, then you have a right to come back if the team accepts you. But if it was for a reason that's not understandable, then no.
Are sports today more or less corrupt than in the past? For example, do you think athletes take advantage of the "system", (regarding rules, regulations, etc..) more in sports today or in the past?
In today's sporting events, there's a lot of corruption going on. Either for media attention, or to win a game. Which do you feel is worse, cheating or corrupting something to win a game, or just to draw attention?
When an athlete uses an performance enhancing drug, would that make a difference if they stopped using the drug and started using more technologically advanced equipment? If so, what would the drastic change in performance and competition be?
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think it would make a difference because both drugs and advanced equipment are both the same cheating in some way. It would change any sport game dramatically and would be a disadvantage to the players who don't cheat and wouldn't allow people to "work hard" to get a spot because you would have people that maybe are not as good that take the drugs or equipment and end up being equal to those players who do put the work in.
DeleteYeah what she said
DeleteIs the type of deception used in flopping and diving unethical? What makes it different from the legal, creative forms of deception we applaud in sport?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jeff, however, if you can fool the referee and give your team an advantage, wouldn't any competitor seize the opportunity?
DeleteDo you believe an Athlete should be awarded a trophy just for participation even if they lose? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI do not think an athlete should be awarded a trophy just for participation even if they lose, because even at a young age children need to learn that losing is a part of life. It will also show the children/people that actually won that it feels good to win.
DeleteI agree that participation trophies in my opinion set up a kid for failure down the road.
DeleteDo you believe that all games are competitive? Or are there some sports that aren't?
ReplyDeleteAll games are competitive. The main goal for every sport is to win, or to place as high as possible. Even if you can't win, nobody wants to lose. When losing is involved, everybody is competitive.
DeleteI completely agree with Andy. Every game, whether it's football or a card game with friends, there's always competition and that urge to win.
DeleteSome theorists regard some theories of impartiality, such as those of Rawls and Hare, as too abstract to apply or to work with. Can we truely reason as if we did not know our place in society, as Rawls suggested, or fully grasp the perspective of others, as Hare's approach seemingly requires?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter One, it talks about how referees must officiate according to the rules and not side with his or her favorite team. Do you think this goes on in professional or collegiate sports? Even if it isn't favoring, do you think the NCAA or any professional sports league pays off the refs in favor of a team with more media attention?
ReplyDeleteThe chapter talks about a nhl hockey shoot out. They say they use it as a way to end a game rather than let it drag on. They make the case that this isn't a fair way to end a game because it turns it into a skills competition rather than account for all aspects of hockey my question is what would be a proper alternative to ending the game rather than a shoot out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there would be a better alternative to end a hockey game, but if there would be a different alternative, I would suggest playing another period.
DeleteDo you think being too competitive in a sport could cause an athlete to do some things that may get them into some trouble trying to be the best in their sport?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAre all games competitive?
ReplyDeleteI believe that all sports do have a sense of competivness. Even when I play a game like chess their is the desire to win. I don't think anyone ever likes to lose.
DeleteIf you quit a sports team, do you think you have a right to come back to the team?
ReplyDeleteI believe if you quit the team it was for a reason, so therefore you let down your team and should not have the right to come back. In most cases no one can stop you from coming back to a team unless you have to try out and the coach purposely cuts you.
DeleteIf you have a reason to quit the team, and your team stands behind you on your decision, then you have a right to come back if the team accepts you. But if it was for a reason that's not understandable, then no.
DeleteAre sports today more or less corrupt than in the past? For example, do you think athletes take advantage of the "system", (regarding rules, regulations, etc..) more in sports today or in the past?
ReplyDeleteWhat justifies the ban on performance enhancing drugs, shouldn't every player be able to take every advantage to accelerate in their sport?
ReplyDeleteIn today's sporting events, there's a lot of corruption going on. Either for media attention, or to win a game. Which do you feel is worse, cheating or corrupting something to win a game, or just to draw attention?
ReplyDelete