Moral Implications of Enhanced Drugs Many people enjoy watching professional sports. NBA, NFL and Olympics have impressed thousands of people. One of the most attractive factors of professional sports is that you might see someone perform a skill that you would never be able to perform. We were all amazed by Usain Bolt's speed when he broke the men's 100m world record. We also recognize that Michal Phelps is extremely gifted when he won 8 gold medals at the 2008 Summer Olympics. But what if someone tells you that his incredible abilities are achieved through the help of performance-enhancing drugs? Maybe you will be less amazed because it seems like a scam and you most likely think that the use of these drugs should be banned in professional sports. However, my thoughts are different; I think some of our moral intuitions about not using enhancement drugs in professional sports aren't as concrete as we thought. In short, the use of performance-enhancing drugs should not be banned, because it does not go against the concept of fairness, does not significantly harm athletes and does not even violate the spirit of sport. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The most common and widely accepted view for banning the use of performance-enhancing drugs, according to Randall Lea's article “Ethical Considerations of Biotechnology Used for Performance Enhancement” (2009), is that the use of these drugs gives those who use them an unfair competitive advantage over other athletes who do not use such drugs. Furthermore, the use of performance-enhancing drugs in competitions is against the rule and is therefore unfair As professional sports require a fair environment in which everyone can compete, the use of performance-enhancing drugs should be banned. Certainly this fairness argument is very convincing. However, it has a flaw. In the article “Fairness and performance enhancement in sport” by Craig Carr. 2008) it was suggested to give every athlete the opportunity to take performance-enhancing drugs equally, and then no one will have the advantage. This point reveals a significant problem with the concept of fairness. Indeed, if everyone can take the drug as they wish, it is certainly fair to all competitors. Our notion of “fair” simply requires the exact same external conditions for every athlete, and that is all that fairness should require in the context of sport. Carr also argues that it makes little sense to ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs on the grounds that they violate the rules. He says that sometimes breaking the rules promotes fairness. For example, in basketball games, there are times when a player deliberately fouls to prevent his opponents from scoring. Everyone who loves watching basketball knows that this is a very common strategy for playing basketball, and no one thinks it is unfair since both teams can do it and it is a reasonable thing to do when one team is ahead of its opponents by a few points and time is running out. This is the same argument made by Randall Lea (2009) that rule violation does not always follow injustice. Therefore it is not very convincing to accuse the use of performance-enhancing drugs simply with the idea of ​​violating the rules. Lea even suggests that the appropriate use of enhancement drugs can create a more level playing field for naturally disadvantaged athletes. Lea argues that racial and genetic differences among athletes existAlways. As a result, no matter what rules are established, fairness between athletes can never be maintained. The use of enhancement drugs, however, can actually help level out these differences between athletes and thus promote fairness. However, after finding that the fairness argument does not work as desired, some people may still be against the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports. According to Dag Vidar Hanstad and Ivan Waddington's article “Perspectives, Sports, Health and Drugs: A Critical Review of Some Key Issues and Problems” (2009), these people concern the negative effects of drug enhancement on athletes. They fear that athletes will suffer significant harm from taking enhancement drugs and will likely no longer be able to lead a healthy life after retirement. Considering these sad results for athletes, people argue that it is necessary to ban the use of enhancement drugs. It is never wrong to think about a person's health. However, this point of view is incorrect for two reasons: first, the harms of some widely used enhancement drugs are not as significant as most people think. For example, anabolic steroid is a very common type of enhancement drug that has been associated with many negative reports about its effects. But as Michael Evans-Brown, Rob Dawson, and Jim McVeigh (2008) point out in “The Terrible Consequences of Doping,” most of these reports are just case reports that do not give people a general sense of the drug's real effects. In fact, according to Evans-Brown, Dawson, and McVeigh, research has shown that about half of people taking anabolic steroids report only acne as a result, and those people said acne is an "acceptable risk." Of course, this isn't to say that performance-enhancing drugs don't cause harm, but let's consider the second reason: At the level of professional sports, athletes are much more likely to suffer significant injuries due to intense competition with others. According to Dag Vidar Hanstad and Ivan Waddington (2009), the player is expected to be accustomed to pain, injuries and playing with them. Given this fact, people will find that most injuries that athletes sustain in professional sports stem from the competition itself, not from taking certain types of medications. As Hanstad and Waddington point out, cases of injuries during professional sports competitions are numerous every year, while the number of significant suffering due to steroid use remains unknown. Since it is considered normal for players to play in pain, the health-based argument immediately loses its force. If we really want to ensure a healthy life for athletes in professional sports, the real thing we need to change is the fundamental way of playing professional sports, not the use of enhancement drugs. But some people still think it is inappropriate to do is it legal for professional players to take performance-enhancing drugs. According to Randall Lea (2009), people argue that it is against the spirit of sports even though the use of enhancement drugs in professional sports could be made fair to everyone and does not significantly harm athletes. Sportsmanship, according to Lea, is defined by certain virtues praised by people in competition, such as athletes' hard work, excellent demonstrations of certain skills. Lea reports that people feel uncomfortable taking performance-enhancing drugs because they feel that the efforts made by athletes, such as.