Lance Armstrong

     Is Lance Armstrong a Mandevillian? Can his actions be justified in any way? Everyone in the cycling community was doping; therefore, it would have been impossible to compete otherwise. Mandeville says that what is right is dictated by social custom. If that is the case then Lance Armstrong's actions could be considered right because that was the custom within the smaller community. At the same time Hobbes would say that Armstrong's actions are unjust because they go against the larger law of the cycling community determined by the sovereign (the person in charge of the races).

     Furthermore, Lance Armstrong's actions can be justified through a utilitarian argument. Through doping he was able to secure a win for the rest of the athletes on his team which benefited them as well in the long run. The NPR podcast said that Lance was doping after he had testicular cancer. After that he began to be involved with the Livestrong movement which gave money to help cancer patients and fund cancer research. In addition, through winning the Tour de France after having cancer he offered hope to thousands of cancer patients throughout the world. Therefore, Lance Armstrong's actions can be justified by a Mandevillian argument and a utilitarian argument. The only way that he could be condemned would be by either a Hobbsian or a virtue ethics point of view that would say his actions were innately wrong.