Utilitarian and Deontology View of Steroid Use in Baseball

Solution Preview

Dear Student,
Hello. This solution should get you started. I shall assume that you have studied this particular subject (A-Rod's steroid use) and that you are familiar with these ethical viewpoints - hence the solution below is a guide; it is a sample which you can use to put together your own. It is also attached as a print-ready paper referencing web,print & video resources. If you want to expand on the information provided, you can also use the listed references. Good luck!

Sincerely,
OTA 105878/Xenia Jones
-----------------------------------------------

An Ethical Discussion: The Morality of Steroid Use in Professional Baseball

What makes an act right or wrong?

There are 3 major normative ethical systems that help people answering the questions of the rightness or wrongness of an action. Mostly, they fall into the two major groups, teleological and deontological ethics. However some argue that the third group - virtue ethics is also as important as it emphasizes the character of the moral agent, a classic Aristotelian view. Both Deontological & Teleological Ethical systems take into account the consequences of the action & the moral judgement is based upon it. Deontology though focuses on the validity of the action ascertaining whether the action itself is right or wrong with that focus weighing more than the resulting consequences. Teleology focuses on the consequences weighing the validity of the action & the reasons behind it less than the consequences that resulted from it, the opposite of a deontological position. The 'War on Terror' from a Deontological perspective is right based on the reasons behind the action (strike at the heart of terrorism before they can cause more damage and fear to the American nation & the free peoples of the world), especially after 9-11. A deontological argument will save a soldier from moral and ethical judgment when he follows orders to bomb a safe house of the Taleban or the Al Qaeda because the cause behind the action is deontologically acceptable. Among the most argued deontological theory is that of Immanuel Kant known as Kantianism, it contends that the actions people perform are informed by some underlying maxim or principle and it is from here where the worth of the action ought to be judged. For example, if a single mother chooses to prostitute herself to feed, send to school and provide for the needs of her children, then her 'act' - the choice of career - becomes a 'sacrifice' of sorts with the underlying maxim being that she is sacrificing her dignity and self-worth for the welfare and future of her children. The criticism of deontological ethics is primarily the blind eye it turns towards appalling consequences. Take for example the bombing of Hiroshima - if one uses the Kantian view - that the act ended WW2, then the action in itself is right and just. But what about the lives of ordinary Japanese that was obliterated that day and the decades of horror that the disfigured and the orphaned as well as the city faced? As long as the intention is good must the damage not matter? It is in this regard that the teleological or consequentialist ethics rise. One of the most commonly cited virtue/teleological (it straddles both) position is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical position opposite of the Kantian view, it declares that the moral worth of any action is judged according to its overall utility. While there are many versions of the applications of Utilitarianism as a form of normative ethics; its classic version however is still seen as the most appropriate form. It is also known as ...