Opinion: Peder Mathiasson writes at the National Athletic Federation website that doping should be banned because so many suffer.
1. Arguments: He thinks it's cheating to take drugs. Honesty and fair play is everything in sport. It is pointless to compete if not all follow common set of rules. It is also dangerous to take drugs. It is contrary courage medical ethics and is associated with major health risks for the individual.
Power ethics: If the number of individuals doped themselves forced to rest follow the same track to achieve equivalent results. Everyone is forced to take drugs to keep the elite level.
Rule Ethics: It is contrary to the sport's established rules if they doped themselves. Everyone should enforce those rules.
Alignment Ethics: Everyone has the right to reach the elite level without having to take drugs, simply avoid cheating. You should not have to destroy their bodies against their will.
2. Arguments: He also thinks that doping destroys the credibility of the sport. Doping thereby constitutes a serious threat to sport as a youth organization and a popular movement. It may even be illegal to take drugs. To manage or take banned substances is under Swedish law prohibited and may result in up to a full two years in prison.
Effect Ethics: Doping can lead to the sport is becoming less popular. People will lose interest in sports. Doping will simply take over.
Rule Ethics: Man breaks simply to Swedish law and may end up in prison.
Alignment Ethics: One should not have to take the risk of going to prison by doping themselves or handled the prohibited substances.
My own view: I (Anders Wikström) think that doping should be banned.
Argument: I think that doping causes people to get less respect for sports stars. One does not know about profits and high results due to doping. Doping agent can sometimes, in certain occasions be used to frame sports stars. Most showing positive doping results tend anyway to blame in this. Athletes can of course also become addicted to doping substances and become addicts. Maradona is a good example, he was abusing heroin, but is now with improvements along the way. The behavior can change drastically in the doping. Aggression and violence occur frequently. This may shock and damage to the surroundings.
Power Ethics: People can become suspicious and are not sure if the sports star made a good result Preparatory doping tests are complete. Some stars will surely be booed.
Rule Ethics: One should not use doping agents to bust someone.
Alignment Ethics: One should not have to worry about being there sitting. If we achieved something good result should not be forced to take doping tests. Nor should we have to take the risk to become addicts.
Opinion: Sports philosopher Claudio Marcello Tamburrini writes in a post that doping should be allowed.
1. Arguments: Occupational Athletes forced to refrain from improving their performance, for their own health. They may not decide themselves what risks they are willing to take. Freedom of doping would take the good with them because we could finally be sure to pay tribute to the most splendid in a sport, and not those who are most skilled at hiding his doping cheats.
Power Ethics: If you allow doping so do not have to bother about doping cheats and thus can pay tribute to all athletes.
Rule Ethics: We shall have the right to take their own decisions.
Alignment Ethics: Man has the right to decide about their body and what they want to do with it.
2. Arguments: If you allow the free doping would be Athlete of prudence would prefer to abstain. These athletes will, however, be forced to take drugs in order not to lose competitiveness. Cautious athletes would undoubtedly be exposed to some pressure of their doped colleagues. But nothing prevents them from freely choosing not to give in to the pressure. Naturally ports they're not in the top-ten top athletes. But why would everyone do it? In working life, it is generally accepted that those who make the greatest sacrifices are rewarded abundantly. The widespread commercialism that today the Council in professional elite sport makes it possible to make a living as professional athletes, even if you do not belong to the extreme scale.
Power Ethics: If you allow doping does not mean that all will be baptized. Some will abstain due to precautionary reasons (because it has not yet really know how damaging doping may be). The athletes will still have the freedom to choose.
Rule Ethics: One should be able to choose and decide doping.
Alignment Ethics: Every human being has the right to go their own way.
My own view: I (Anders Wikström) are for doping in certain contexts.
Argument: Since the doping increases the performance-ability, will present world record to be beaten, this is always popular among the audience.
Although I think it's awesome when a new world record noted.
Some doping is almost like regular coffee just that because they have a stimulating effect.
Snuff, smoking, and alcohol is almost more dangerous than effedrin and they're not prohibited.
Some who are unsure of their body and have low self-esteem may be using doping quickly get results.
If you have a bad economy can using doping end up being good for an athlete and earn money.
Power Ethics: If doping allowed the individuals also baptized for better bodies and self-confidence. Sport will become more popular when the new world record noted.
Rule Ethics: One should always think about his own good.
Alignment Ethics: You have the right to take doping as a last resort. A man has the right to resort to doping to feel better.