I don't understand the argument about "sacredness," any more than I understand the idea of "accuracy" as applied to a game. These are category errors, so far as I can see. A performance is occurring. Referees are performers, as players are. They make errors. So what? People attending a performance and people studying a performance remotely are doing different things. Therefore the error of a singer, or a stagehand, can be seen by studying the video of the performance, but it means something different than it did to the person attending the event, whose fleeting perception was shaped by the needs of the moment. Obviously, the businesses that create "sports" performances will shape the performances for the purpose of selling tickets.

As far as I can tell, "desirable goods" are goods, and "undesirable goods" are bads. Telling the difference depends on context, naturally: prosthetic limbs are goods, but may not be considered good by working ballet dancers, who cannot in general perform with them.

What does all this rhetoric contribute?

Bradley Allenby, the Lincoln professor of engineering and ethics at Arizona State University argues that performance-enhancing drugs should be legalized. He argues, "[t]o perform consistently, 21st-century athletes enhance legally with better gear, specialized diets, physical trainers, vitamin B, and energy drinks and gels. Why not add drugs and other technologies to the list of legal enhancements?"

You can't quote without linking or citing. I don't know why it really matters whether this person or some other person makes this obvious argument. Perhaps the fact that he has a title that includes "ethics" makes it seem like a more ethical argument if you put it in his mouth. But at any rate you have to give us a way to verify that he has said this obvious and not very insightful thing. If Professor Allenby knows the answer to his question, that is, if he is aware of the arguments that would be advanced for treating steroids differently from kale or spinach, he should answer those arguments directly: pretending they don't exist is a mere rhetorical flourish. If, on the other hand, he doesn't know the arguments that would be advanced for treating blood doping differently from strength training, then he isn't qualified to be cited as an authority in the discussion.

It is because we do not believe in short-cuts. There is a difference between molding one’s body and modifying one’s body.

This doesn't make sense, unless those two synonyms are supposed to differentiate the long way from the short way.

Thus, making life easier for others is not necessarily a desirable good. It is only a desirable good if it does not contradict notions of self-determination.

What has this to do with the preceding confusing sentence? I see no thus-ness.

It also must be noted that often performance-enhancing drugs have negative side effects that the proliferation of technology does not necessarily, such as permanent physical damages. It is true that society does not reject these drugs simply on principle grounds, but because of their detrimental physiological consequences. Regardless, sports are frequently used as a prism and microcosm of society at large, and one can extrapolate how to gauge the value of a technological advancement from the aforementioned examples in professional sports.

Now you have given a distinction between forms of training or chemical support we permit and thus we prohibit. But you've so introduced the distinction between beneficial and harmful that we can no longer make any analytical use of it.

Thus, the heuristic for gauging the desirability of a technological advancement is whether or not it improves self-determination without offending modern notions of the authenticity of uncontaminated human achievement.

Under what circumstances? People in America use drugs to improve academic performance on exams (or hope they do) without any of the "heuristic" process you're announcing here.

Under this heuristic, laws that cause the slow introduction of a superior technology into the mainstream are proper if they are necessary to encourage the creation of products that increase self-determination without detrimental side effects. According to Allenby, the actual danger of performance enhancing drugs are that they are not given adequate attention by outlawing their use; the research that would naturally arise from the use of these drugs fails to occur. "For example, this thinking has led to inadequate research on the risks of enhancement technologies, especially new ones." Why research something that can’t be used?

What? This is another strange naivete, as though the only information we would have about the damage done by long-term use of steriods would be gained by having athletes use them.

This has led to skepticism amongst users about purported side effects of performance-enhancing drugs. This is ignorance born of prohibition.

Evidence of this remarkable proposition? Suppose it were true, however. Would we then encourage high school athletes to use performance-enhancing doses of steriods so other high school athletes would be familiar with watching steroid-infused bodies fall apart?

The argument here feels entirely unedited: unshaped, untested, unrefined. Let's go back to the beginning: what is the subject? Is it the adoption of technology in culture? In sports? About ethics rather than technology? Clarity on this point was crucial so that there could be a thesis of some kind. After locating the subject, it is that thesis we are looking for. It should be stated clearly at the outset, developed through a carefully structured argument, leading to a conclusion that gives the reader somewhere beyond the boundaries of the argument presented to which she can betake her own thoughts.

Considerations in Determining Desirable Goods

The National Basketball Association limits the use of instant replay and computer technology to the final minutes of the game. The British Premier League still does not allow the usage of instant replay to judge onside penalties. The National Football League heavily regulates when and how instant replay may be used, and it comes with a penalty. One is limited in one’s request for reviews, and to be incorrect, comes at the cost of a potentially vital timeout. They tease us. Through advances in technology the viewer is able to watch replays of the contested situation and is able to make common sense judgments about the accuracy of officiating. Yet, referees are often barred from taking action. Their job, as much as maintaining the credibility of the game, is legitimizing its illegitimacies. Despite the premium that sports hold in American society, and across the world, we have still accepted the idea that the accuracy of the game may be tarnished. We have systematically rebuffed the all-encompassing advancement of technology into the athletic arena. To an indeterminable degree it appears that there are certain aspects of sports that we hold so sacred that we do not want them encroached upon. Society values the authenticity of human error. We do not want to be mistake proof; there is an excellence in inefficiency. To the extent that this is accurate, the limitations on the advancement or dissemination of a “good” that occur as a result of regulation and copyright law may serve as the retainers of normalcy. But to make such a judgment, we must first distinguish between desirable and undesirable goods. The spread of internet technology that encourages knowledge and allows societies to empower themselves is unequivocally a good. There are few qualities more pronounced and supported, perhaps nominally, that human self-determination. This is a desirable good. Copyright laws that hinder creativity, the dissemination of technology, information and ultimately human self-determination, are thus improper because they hinder the proliferation of desirable goods. Equally, law that allow for conglomerates to consolidate ownership of radio stations, limit competition for broadcasting and minimize the dissemination of information and technology are unjustified because they limit the channels through which individuals may receive information which is vital to self-determination. But advances in technology, that improve the human being’s condition physiologically and her experience as a spectator in the athletic arena do not necessarily promote self-determination. They are undesirable goods. Though they offer an improvement in performance, spectator experience and in accuracy, they are shunned. During every labor strike by a professional sports organization’s referees, we see witness their replacements rely more on technology to confirm their decisions. The pace of the game slows. Spectators begin to forget the mistakes that the actual officials make, and only recall that they “managed” the game. They did not stand in the way of it. The pace was not ruined. Their reliance on their own decision-making in lieu of technology is what propels them to the top of their profession. Their errors and omissions are criticized, but widely accepted by the masses. Performance-enhancing drugs are possible through advances in science and medicine. But it is believed that despite improving human performance, they diminish the accomplishment. Society values the “natural” dimension of sports, and that even though athletes are physically superior, their superiority is derived from good genes and their own dedication. Their gifts represent tiny miracles that encounter man from time to time that must be cultivated to reach their full potential. Bradley Allenby, the Lincoln professor of engineering and ethics at Arizona State University argues that performance-enhancing drugs should be legalized. He argues, "[t]o perform consistently, 21st-century athletes enhance legally with better gear, specialized diets, physical trainers, vitamin B, and energy drinks and gels. Why not add drugs and other technologies to the list of legal enhancements?" It is because we do not believe in short-cuts. There is a difference between molding one’s body and modifying one’s body. Thus, making life easier for others is not necessarily a desirable good. It is only a desirable good if it does not contradict notions of self-determination. It also must be noted that often performance-enhancing drugs have negative side effects that the proliferation of technology does not necessarily, such as permanent physical damages. It is true that society does not reject these drugs simply on principle grounds, but because of their detrimental physiological consequences. Regardless, sports are frequently used as a prism and microcosm of society at large, and one can extrapolate how to gauge the value of a technological advancement from the aforementioned examples in professional sports. Thus, the heuristic for gauging the desirability of a technological advancement is whether or not it improves self-determination without offending modern notions of the authenticity of uncontaminated human achievement. Under this heuristic, laws that cause the slow introduction of a superior technology into the mainstream are proper if they are necessary to encourage the creation of products that increase self-determination without detrimental side effects. According to Allenby, the actual danger of performance enhancing drugs are that they are not given adequate attention by outlawing their use; the research that would naturally arise from the use of these drugs fails to occur. "For example, this thinking has led to inadequate research on the risks of enhancement technologies, especially new ones." Why research something that can’t be used? This has led to skepticism amongst users about purported side effects of performance-enhancing drugs. This is ignorance born of prohibition. In the sports example, despite the fact that the technology is not used, negative externalities of ignorance do not occur. The existence of the technology allows individuals to evaluate the quality of decisions. So as one considers whether or not an advancement in technology is a desirable good, it is important to understand that it may be a desirable good not because of its usage, but merely due to its existence. Perhaps, that is the point and why judging what to allow, or limit is difficult, we cannot predict the impact it will have on society.

-- ZackSharpe - 08 Jan 2013

<--/commentPlugin-->