Are PEDs morally for athletic use? by Jake Seeherman

[ By on December 18, 2016 ]

PED’s or performance enhancing drugs are used by athletes “to improve performance and increase muscle.” Some people oppose PED’s because they believe it gives users an unfair advantage over players who don’t use. Although some athletes who use PED’s are dependent upon them to succeed.

The NCAA and all professional sports leagues have banned the use of PED’s. They believe the “use of performance enhancers is cheating because it violates constitutive rules of the activity.” However as doctor Julian Savulescu says  “Nature is not fair””Some gymnasts are more flexible, and some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, we level the playing field.” He argues that in the same way PED’s give an unfair advantage, everyone in life was given unfair traits. Maybe instead of cheating, PED’s are actually a way of lessening the advantages people are born with.

College is also really expensive and hard to afford. For a large amount of kids the only way they can go to college is by receiving a scholarship for a sport. Is it wrong for someone to use PED’s in order to better their future?

Trackback URL

2 Comments on “Are PEDs morally for athletic use? by Jake Seeherman”

  1. KNF

    Hi Jake,

    I think that PEDS are always wrong. Enhancing your abilities should not be done by a drug, it should be done by the persons determination to become a better athlete. Your posing a question that is saying that people who want a successful future in sports take PEDs. But basically, you are cheating your whole future and life possibly. Yes, the only way for some kids to get into college is sports but kids should be able to work at it themselves not a drug. You can use the analogue of cheating on a huge test. You are cheating on that test so you can get into the college you would like so you can have a bright future. Well, that is against Kant’s theory, cheating in order to become successful is wrong. Jake, I hope you learn that PEDs are always wrong.

  2. KNF

    While I agree that some people are naturally more gifted in certain areas, and that it would be nice to even the playing field once in a while, I think that performance enhancing drugs are not the way to go. Competition is exciting because everyone is different and has a different set of skills. If everyone was at the same level, it would not be impressive, nor would it truly be competition. It is true that “nature isn’t fair”, but if someone is a professional athlete, it means that they do have significant skills, and they have devoted the time and energy to taking advantage of and developing the skills that nature did give them. Also, if everyone took PEDs, then wouldn’t athletes be back where they started, constantly trying to be better than their rivals who are also on PEDs?

    I understand that those who use PEDs depend on them for success in their careers and their educations, but if someone were to use PEDs to overtake their competition, who, let’s say, is not on PEDs, then they are doing a huge disservice to their competition, who may have worked harder or is just naturally better. For example, if someone is naturally very good at writing essays for English class,, is it fair for someone else, who is having a harder time in English, to hire a tutor to write the essay for them, because they want to get a higher grade than their friend? I don’t think that is fair, because some people are just better than others at certain things, and that is just life. It is unfair at times, but competition should motivate these athletes to work harder, not take drugs for instant gratification.

Hi Stranger, reply with your thoughts:

Allowed XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>