In this paper Animalism is analysed. It will be argued that Animalism is correct in claiming (i) that being of a certain sort of animal S is a fundamental individuative substance sortal concept (animal of the species Homo Sapiens), (ii) that this implies that Animalism is correct in claiming that persons such as us are, by necessity, human beings, (iii) that remaining the same animal is a necessary condition for our identity over time. Contrary to Animalism it will be argued that this does not imply that person should be understood as a phased sortal concept. It will be argued that Animalism rests upon a prior conception of person, and that this implies that person must be understood as a basic substance sortal concept through which we have to individuate ourselves and others. It is further argued that this, together with the insights of Animalism, implies that persons, by necessity, are beings of a biological nature.
It has been thought that sportspersons, through their participation in sport, acquire moral attitudes and behavior that make them good moral role models. These moral attitudes and behavior can be called the ethos of sport, and consist of the principles of fair play and courage, justice, and honesty. In this article, it is argued that this belief is mistaken. Through four very common examples of sporting practice, it is shown that sport, contrary to providing a good basis for proper moral behavior, promotes what otherwise would be called non-moral attitudes and behavior. As a conclusion, it is pointed out that sportspersons might very well be good moral role models, but that they would be moral role models in spite of the fact that they are involved in sporting activities.
In this work, we look into the problem of justifying the ban on doping in sport, identifying doping as the improvement of a sportpersons’ sport results based upon risky and illegal methods. I make a distinction between external and internal accounts that justify the ban on doping. The external accounts justify the ban by claiming that it satisfies some desirable value that are external to sport or participation in sport. Internal accounts, on the other hand, justify the ban by claiming that it realizes values that are internal to sport or participation in sport. It is claimed that the traditional external accounts of justifying the ban in which it is claimed that doping leads to different form of harm, are not satisfactory since we cannot establish a significant ethical difference between harm caused by doping, and harm caused by participation in a sport. Contrary to these accounts, it is claimed that justifying the ban on doping in sport should be based upon reasons internal to sport. According to this account, (i) sport is best understood as a practice, that is, a socially autonomous activity, with specific rules, standards and moral virtues, (ii) athletic using doping is a misunderstanding of the sportperson concerning what it means to be participation aims at acquisition, and development of sport-specific skills, abilities and virtues, and that participating in the sport practice, (iv) that doping is morally dubious since sportpersons’ have utilitarian reasons to acquire the general virtue truthfulness and act in accordance with a self-understanding of themselves as being representatives of the sport practice they are participants in.
The aim of this paper is to articulate an implicit conceptualization of the body of sport persons that exists besides the official holistic and health-based understanding of mind and body. Sport, besides being a guardian of positive values, also is also associated with an instrumentalization of the body consisting of a cluster of mutually interdependent conceptualizations of the body: Firstly, an optimization where athletes’ are focusing upon optimizing their bodies to perform sport performances. Secondly, an idea of perfectedness in that this optimization rests upon the idea of being as perfect as possible for doing specific sport related tasks. Thirdly, modifiability in that body in sport is understood as a “raw material” that can and ought to be “cultivated” for satisfying this perfectedness ideal in sport. Fourthly, control in that there is a need of constant surveillance of sportspersons’ bodies. Fifthly, a strict division between body and mind, where sportpersons are rational subjects who should use their mechanic bodies in trying to reach their aims. This implicit understanding of body is problematic in that (i) it, to some extent, resembles attitudes involved in anorexia nervousa, and that these attitudes, if not consciously discussed, are negative for the sport community itself as well as for the society at large. Furthermore, it might be that sports community, due to the idea of instrumentalization of body in sport, is strengthening negative attitudes towards people who do not live up to the ideal healthy body, for instance persons with obesity and overweight.