Review Sheet Exam 2 Answers

.docx

School

University of Alabama *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

256

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CommodoreChimpanzee3414

Review Sheet Exam #2 Below are a list of study questions for our first exam. Some subset of these questions will appear on the exam. Not all of these questions will appear on the exam (I will not tell you in advance how many questions there will be). The actual exam questions may be worded or structured differently than they appear below. The exam questions might only include parts of these study questions or combine parts of multiple different questions together. Nonetheless, if you are comfortable with answering the questions below, you should be very well prepared for the exam. (1)Lehman argues that cheaters can count as playing and wining the games in which they compete. He considers three different sorts of cases: unintentional rule-breaking (e.g. going over the line in bowling), intentional rule-breaking (e.g. offensive lineman holding or intentional fouls in basketball) and intentional breaking of constitutive rules (e.g. using your hands in soccer). Explain his reasons for thinking of each of these that someone can still count as properly winning the game while engaging in this kind of rule breaking. How does the social context in which sports take place play a role in his argument? Lehman considers three types of intentional rule breaking, unintentional, intentional, and breaking of constitutive rules. For unintentional rule breaking, this can easily be dismissed as not looking carefully enough. An example would be miscounting a penalty stroke in golf. For intentional rule breaking, one can get away with something like holding in football, and still win. If they are not caught, you cannot deny who won the game. Breaking a constitutive rule like using your hands in soccer, if not caught, can still not deny victory to the opponent. In a social context, the level of play may determine how these rules are enforced. A pick-up game of basketball may have a looser interpretation of the rules rather than an NBA playoff game. Calling every foul in a small, friendly pick-up game would make it take far too long and make someone look like a very poor sport. But, you still cannot let someone run up and down the court with the ball, as this would eliminate the basic constitutive rule of dribbling. (2)Both Simon and Brown consider the problem of specifying in a rigorous way what substances/drugs are going to count as PEDs. Why might this be difficult? What sorts of cases could constitute problematic grey areas? What stance does Brown take towards this issue? What three features that Simon stipulates for what he will count as PEDs? (3)Brown considers the claim that PED use is unfair. What does he say in response to this argument against PEDs?

(4)What arguments does Brown consider that seek to establish that PED use is immoral? Why does he think these arguments fail? The first belief is that PED use is immoral (5)One might argue that PED use goes against the purpose of sports in some important way. What version of this argument does Brown consider? Why does he think that this argument fails? What does he say about the prospect of sports and/or the way we play it being changed in some fundamental way by PED use? (6)Simon considers and rejects an argument that PED use should not be allowed because it violates the Harm Principle . What is this principle? Simon considers two arguments here: that PED use undermines agents’ freedom and that PED use can cause harm to others. What is each argument? Why does Simon think that each argument fails? The Harm Principle is the belief that we should stop consenting adults from bad behavior in order to protect others from following this same bad behavior. Simon believes that the agents’ freedom argument is that (7)Simon claims that the reason PEDs ought to be against the rules of sport is that it undermines the ideal of sport. What is this ideal? Why does Simon think that PED use undermines it? Why does he think PED use undermines sports as competitions between persons ? Simon argues that the ideal of sport is to bring out excellence in oneself and an opponent. When one uses PEDs, it is not ones natural ability, but who’s body can adapt to drugs better, making it become a competition of bodies, rather than persons. Along with this theory that it is a competition of bodies, it also eliminates the work and effort than many put in to get to where they are, and the decisions that they have made. Using PEDs can eliminate some of the work that it takes to get to a certain point. (8)What does Keating think that sportsmanship is? In answering the question explain the following: why does he think understanding the point of playing sports is important to understanding sportsmanship? What are the basic norms or virtues associated with sportsmanship for

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help