Cheating is malum in se, a proper understanding of precision with a strong moral pejorative linguistically as cheating bring about. Cheating involves rule breaking; however, not all rule breaking is cheating. Green provided four formal elements existed to ensure not to judge whether cheating happened. First, the rule is fair and enforced. Second, rule breaking takes place in rule-governed activity. Third, the rule breaker intends to break rules. Fourth, the rule breaker intends to gain advantages.
Some exceptions have its own policy in the rules; the classification does not mean that it is a rule breaker. The moral weight of breaking the rule has entered voluntarily in a cooperative activity with a person, and there is a mutual understanding of the rules and expectations of the activity, implicitly and explicitly. Sometimes in breaking the rules is the involvement of the actor intentionally. The classification of the behavior is cheating, the agent intended to break the rules and gain advantages. The intention to break rules to gain own advantage and without anticipating the consequence of the behavior is cheating.
For Wertz, spoke on the effectiveness of a lex talonis approach; the pursuit of fair effect of normalized unethical behavior and eroded the features participated in sport. However, Green argued against Wertz and suggested that level-playing field is not an advantage to anyone, the label of cheating is insufficient. Green added that the reciprocal behavior in rule breaking is ethically judged harshly, not as cheating. Kayka claimed that the rule violations have its sub-verities with moral claims attached, offensive and defensive rules. Offensive rule violations are an element of cheating with its goal to gain advantage while defensive rule violations are not element of cheating; its intention is to mitigate the advantage sought after by the offensive rule breaker.
Morgan referred to Rawl’s account that, if the moral judgments of a person often coincide with its interest, the person has no morality. Two non sequiter assumptions of Morgan are; first, the motivation behind a defensive rule is self-interested; second, the arguments are not moral when and if it always favors to self-interest, and no indication stated in defensive rule breaking that it existed. Holley commented on Kayka with its primary interesting point about reciprocity; the copper rule that says, “Treat others the way they treated you.” The perception of Holley is that, there is a limitation by the number of people involved in the activity, in the scope of defensive rule breaking. The existing objections to the defensive rule violations are all sufficient, however, not conclusive.
Sport is the cooperative rule-bound venture that constituted and enforced doping, breaking the anti-doping rules intentionally. Defensive doping scenario is everywhere in media storylines about drug users in physical activities like sports in particular. Initially, some athletes did not consider doping. Eventually, it became inevitable since most athletes doped. From Green’s specifications, doping is set for defensive rule violation. Two or more people who are doping constitute a cetibus peribus condition, as one of the major problem with the concept in the philosophical literature on sports. For a wide variety of behaviors and substances, the utilization of doping is evident; however, in the philosophical view, actions are made to set variables in ethical consideration.
People could understand the simplicity of lex talonis in a precise manner; however, the case of cheating by using drugs, there is an imbalance on it. Its imbalance leads to another consequence where the defensive doper exceeded the advantages of the instigator has gained. To control both the rule breakers variably, breaking rules is escalated proportionately and potentially with queries of justice and equity. The instigator is still a cheater, while defensive doping is a failure. The same motivation leads to defensive doping, to minimize the cheater’s gained advantages contribute a cycle of antagonism perpetually that drugs play its important role.
Relation to Future Position
I am an advocate on the movements against doping in sports. I strongly support the objectives of the World Anti-Doping Agency or WADA that coordinates, promotes, and monitors the fight against doping in sports globally. I commit myself to participate in wide reaching anti-doping programs from public and private organizations.
After I read the article, I am challenged to pursue my plans of becoming a good educator. I would surely impart every knowledge I have to educate learners about the ethics of cheating in particular. Personally, the arguments from different philosophers and experts on their fields have opened my mind on how to adopt things when it is necessary. In my own opinion, there is no good reason to say that, “If you cannot beat them, join them.” As a future educator, I am determined to teach the best things among the right things available and accessible, for quality learning to everyone and to stay virtuous in life.
Kirkwood, K. (2012). Defensive Doping: Is There a Moral Justification for “If You Can’t Beat
‘Em—Join ‘Em?”. Journal of Sports and Social Issues , 36 (2), 223-228. DOI: 10.1177/0193723512437350.