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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
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).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great piece!
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the Armstrong scandal through the perspective of Bernard Mandeville than there is absolutely no scandal. In Mandeville's "Fable of the Bees" he suggests that vice and fraud were as much a part of the hive's success as virtue. Lance Armstrong filled a fraudulent role and he reaped successes for many people, not just him self.
This is a perfect example of the scenario Mandeville wrote about three hundred years ago.
@Will I would take your statement a step further and say there was no scandal, but this situation had only losers. This would finally show that event the pursuit self-interest can turn around on you.
ReplyDelete@Blake great post. I feel it's somewhat similar to mine. I thought it was easier to relate Mandevillian ideas to the topic of Armstrong rather than politics or something that would seem easier when talking about ethics.
I think this is great and agree with it personally but I think that because he sued so many people who accused him of it and ruined their reputations hurts the utilitarian argument although I do think the good done by Livestrong outweighs the harm he did by suing his former members, also if he had admitted to it earlier it would have saved the government money and time
ReplyDeleteI think that if one of our thinkers were most likely to support such conduct, it would certainly be Mandeville. That said, I don't know if he would necessarily support it outright. After all, while Armstrong achieved a great deal of fame and praise, he is now suffering the consequences, and has become an object of public derision and mockery. That's the worst possible thing for Mandeville. But then again, it seems that this might always be a possibility if all our conduct is suspect in some way or another. It is hard to say with Mandeville because his goal is as much satire as systematic philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI think that Blake is right about Hobbes. This is an example of where they part ways, despite certain similarities. I think what Armstrong did would be worse for Hobbes than Smith/Hutcheson/Hume, who might see it as a misguided form of team spirit. Hobbes I think would see it as corrosive of the very heart of trust in authority, which can endanger an entire endeavor. This has been the case with baseball and cycling--these enterprises certainly have become damaged brands.
I have to agree as well that Mandeville would be the most to agree with Lance's decision making. While I agree with what you said about Hobbes, I have to disagree with what Hobbes would believe. Even though he cheated which is morally unacceptable, we have to look at it from the whole and weigh the pros and cons. In this case the pros to him having doped outweigh the cons, by providing hope to cancer patients and loved ones who suffer from cancer patients. This moral benefit outweighs the moral negativity from this scandal.
ReplyDeleteYes, but it turns out you might agree with Hobbes's argument when it concerns a sport that matters to you, right? If Bonds or Canseco or McGwire did more for charity would this change your views of Steroids in sports?
ReplyDelete