¶ … Ethics -- Kant, Aristotle, and Plato on Steroid use in Professional Baseball
In the popular press, one of the common defenses of the ethics of steroid use in professional baseball is that it does no harm, other than harm the body of the professional player who willingly undertakes the risk for his vocation and a high salary. Professional sports, the argument goes, are a risky endeavor as it is, so is this really such a terrible thing? Perhaps, the defender might concede, anabolic steroid use also gives the user a slight edge over his fellow competitors. But how different is this edge from benefiting from superior training techniques, better coaching, or simply being a part of a better team? In such a view, steroids are merely another powerful pill to give already extraordinarily endowed sporting individual an extra edge on the playing field, as they pursue short-term fame, fortune, and athletics success for their teammates, fans, and cities.
But even if these arguments...
To transgress the laws, even the rules and laws of a mere game is wrong because it means the other individuals in other professions might and could use one's own ethical transgression to justify their own moral foibles -- a stockbroker might consider his actions in taking advantage of insider trading tips justified, even though this gave him an unfair advantage in making money by the same rationale of 'any means necessary' to win. A child might see the abuse steroid use does unto the body as justified because she saw her favorite pitcher do the same. Of course, the rules and laws about steroid use within baseball are notably lax, perhaps undercutting Kantian analysis -- but even if this were the case, this does not excuse the baseball…
