Ethical Use of Steroids in Baseball

¶ … 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 were valid to some degree, the philosopher Immanuel Kant would argue that, according to his categorical imperative, one ought to always act as if one's every action were to set a universal law for all humanity -- whether one is Barry Bonds or simply Barry Smith. 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 player nor the hypothetical stockbroker or child the obligation to obey the doctrine of universal laws, not merely the laws of his or her chosen pursuits.

Even from the point-of-view of the health baseball player, however, steroid use is wrong, the Greek philosopher Aristotle would add. Aristotle would stress the difference between the pleasures of the moment provided by sports fame and glory, and the long-standing happiness of living up to one's moral standards as part of a cohesive ethical system. Clearly the latter is preferable to the former, and Aristotle would argue that the steroid using baseball player would forever be haunted by the knowledge that drugs, rather than his or her own athletic prowess, provided the reason for his or her success. The pleasures of the moment cannot provide happiness and real confidence in one's ability and thus one's self in the long-term. How can Bonds feel he has truly made a great record for the sports, and rest on his laurels with true happiness, if he knows that his access to the right dealer might be the main reason for his success?