In many sporting competitions (and other types of competition) people will pray to God for help. Would it be fair to call such help cheating if it were granted? Is it ethical to even ask for what would be an unfair advantage over an opposing side in what should be a purely human competition? The critics of performance enhancing drugs seem to say nothing on this issue.

I'm not quite sure I understand what his has to do with performance-enhancing drugs. But, as I in effect said in response to a different question , if it turned out that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 only because God had intervened, I don't think I'd feel quite the same about it. The nuns at Sunday School always taught me that it is wrong to pray for that kind of help. One may pray that one does one's best, that no-one is injured, and the like. But one may not pray for one's opponent's to do badly, nor for victory. God does not play favorites, and to ask God to do so is the height of arrogance. That God does not play favorites is something with which it is difficult to come to terms, if one really considers its full implications. And, as a result, this viewpoint is, clearly enough, not universally shared. That is a tragic fact, one that is at the root of many of history's most regrettable episodes, not to mention a good number of the present's.

Aaron Meskin provided this as part of his response to a question about performance enhancing drugs: "...But there might be other sorts of reasons. Professional athletes are entertainers, and one of the things we value in entertainment is the manifestation of human skill at a very high level. Sport and other forms of entertainment are like art in that way. The use of performance enhancing drugs tends to undercut our sense that sport is valuable and enjoyable because it allows us to experience high levels of skill and human achievement." I think this is a reason IN SUPPORT of performance enhancing drugs! There are individuals who are biologically high on these same hormones, who no doubt enjoy enhanced performance over those who are naturally lower on these same hormones. Why not level the "playing field"? We would see enhanced performance from all players, but the highest from those who have perfected their technique. I don't see how use of these drugs "undercuts" our appreciation of sports. I fully...

I think it's not just that we take joy in "high levelsof skill and human achievement" that are the result of "extraordinaryand undeserved pieces of luck" but, perhaps even more so, in such performances that are the result of extraordinary dedication. Suppose it turned out that, shortly after he was diagnosed with cancern, Lance Armstrong sold his soul to Satan in exchange for the cycling skills requried for a sequence of Tour de France victories. (Obviously, I am not suggesting that any such thing might have happend.) Speaking just for myself, I'd regard that as a form of cheating, and I'd take no pleasure whatsoever in Armstrong's accomplishments. They wouldn't have been his accomplishments, in the relevant sense. What makes his story gripping is precisely the fact that he was able to return from death's door to dominate his sport because of his dedication to doing so and not because Satan was giving him an unfair advantage. Now obviously, if Armstrong took "performance-enchancing" drugs ...

The questioner for http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/149 got the question wrong, so the response was wrong too. The question isn't do animals feel pain, because the consensus among animal behavorists is that they certainly do experience pain sensations which are in almost every way akin to the pain which humans feel. The correct question is whether animals can experience "suffering", and by extension, whether it is possible to "torture" an animal. For example, if someone were to step on your toe accidentally, a human (or animal) would feel a sensation of pain. But the pain would be momentary, and you wouldn't "suffer" from it unless you thought they had done it on purpose or vindictively. For that matter, a human can be harmed or "suffer" from some real or imagined act done to them when there is no pain (or even when there is pleasure) associated with the event. The argument being made by some researchers is that all animals (including apes, dolphins, etc.) except humans lack the...

A few points. First, I don't understand why you think one can't suffer without reflecting on the reasons for one's pain. That just seems false, and the OED seems to agree with me: suffer (v.) To have (something painful, distressing, or injurious) inflicted orimposed upon one; to submit to with pain, distress, or grief. Nor do I see why one cannot be tortured if one cannot reflect in this way. And again, the OED would seem to agree: torture (v.) 2. To inflict severe pain or suffering upon; to torment; to distress orafflict grievously; also, to exercise the mind severely, to puzzle orperplex greatly. Also absol. to cause extreme pain. That said, it's an interesting empirical question to what extent animals are capable of " reflect[ing] upon the reasons for or context of the pains they experience". So far as I know, however, the view you ascribe to "some researchers" is not a majority view.

Why is it considered morally wrong for a man or a woman to have a romantic or sexual relationship with someone significantly younger than themselves?

I don't know that it is considered morally wrong, simply in virtue of the age difference. It's true, to be sure, that people are often inclined to speculate about the reasons a younger person might be involved with an older one, but such speculation is typically just gossip. It's also true that such relationships can pose certain kinds of challenges. But, as I said, I don't know of any general reason to regard such relationships as immoral simply in virtue of the age difference. Of course, it is another matter when we are talking about minors, but I don't take the question to concern that kind of relationship.

If it was proved tomorrow that plants can feel pain, what would happen to the arguments of vegetarians who are vegetarians because they don't believe in causing animals pain?

Well, if that were the argument one had used, one would be in a bind. But I doubt many people are vegetarians for that reason. Nonetheless, most people, vegetarian or otherwise, think it wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering. If it turned out that plants (say, grasses) feel pain, then I take it most people would be in a bind. Fortunately, there doesn't seem much prospect that organisms with no nervous system (let alone a central nervous system) feel pain.

I really love my wife and of course I never want to hurt her, but is it moral to cheat on her if I'm 100% sure that she won't know (and therefore she won't be hurt)?

Extending Alex's last point, one might say that you would harm your wife were you to cheat on her, whether or not she ever discovered your infidelity . Of course, it wouldn't cause her emotional pain, but one might suppose that she has an interest in your fidelity that is quite independent of her knowledge.

I am a police officer and I have a dilemma. Everyday I see people destroyed from the effects of alcohol abuse. I have seen innocent people killed by people under the influence of alcohol. In some instances it was two drunks arguing and one killed another or once a drunk husband shot and killed his wife in front of their children. Then there are the drunk drivers who indiscriminately kill I’ve seen several of those. Now I can say that I have definitely never seen someone killed by another person under the influence of marihuana. I have never seen anyone killed by a driver under the influence of marihuana. I have never seen a person die because they smoked themselves to death, but I have seen quite a few people drink themselves to death. Then I look at the potential medical value of marihuana and when I combine all these things I am beginning to feel that morally I am falling off of a cliff. One-day history may judge me to be a 21st century Nazi. If I deliberately do not make arrests for violations of...

Well, you're in a tough position. (And I agree with you: I see no reason marijuana should be outlawed when alcohol and tobacco are not.) But I don't think you're likely to be compared to the Nazis. So you should let yourself off a bit. Still, as I said, you are in a tough position. I take it that deliberately not busting people for pot could get you in a fair bit of trouble, even fired. Obviously, if you felt sufficiently strongly about this issue, you might find yourself with little choice but to quit being a cop. That'd be a tough choice to make, I'm sure. So I wonder if there are alternatives. To what extent is it possible for you to speak out on this issue, given your profession? The issue of mandatory sentencing is a very important one here. Could you speak out on that issue?

A friend of mine has informed me that she has secretly stopped using birth control in hopes of becoming pregnant and forcing her boyfriend to quit the theological seminary program he's in to be with her. (He's training to be a Catholic priest; she's in love with him; obviously if he becomes a priest he cannot be with her.) My question is: Do I have any moral or ethical obligations to do anything? I don't really know the boyfriend that well. I think it's an interesting question because none of these people are purely good or purely evil. While my friend may be acting very selfishly, so is the boyfriend, since he's essentially just stringing her along until he reaches priesthood. What to do?

What a mess! Obviously, your friend and her boyfriend have some serious issues. What on earth is she doing dating someone in Catholic seminary? and what on earth is he doing still dating her? And man, what is he doing having sex with her ? Is he unsure what he intends to do? Has he led her to believe he is unsure? In any event, your friend's actions are extremely wrong, and the fact that he is also acting wrongly doesn't make her deception any more justifiable. (None of us is purely good or purely evil, but that does not mean we cannot do very good and very bad things.) Indeed, her actions are not only wrong but are self-destructive and immature, since he would be likely, at least at some level, if not simply outright, to resent both her and any child they might conceive, even if he did not suspect her of deceiving him, which he might well. (Moreover, if you know the truth, someone else probably knows, as well, and so he might well find out the truth. Lies have a way of being revealed.) A...

Why isn't Christianity considered evil? After reading the Bible, I noticed that homosexuality is 'abominable', that if anyone chooses to work on a sunday then they should be 'put to death', that slavery is fine, animal sacrifice is fine and that the mentally-ill are possessed by the devil. Why then, do we not actively supress Christianity? How can a Christian legitimately believe that homosexuality, for example, is fine and still call themselves a Christian, despite what it says in the Bible? It seems to me that it is an evil moral theory to subscribe to.

A few comments. First, the Bible nowhere says that oneshouldn't work on Sunday. It says that one shouldn't work on theSabbath, and the relevant prohibition is contained in the Law given toMoses, which means that it referred originally to the Jewish Sabbath,Saturday. Second,as Peter Fosl said, the view that the Bible isliterally true, through and through, is largely a recent invention andwould not be accepted by most people who call themselves Christians.But I'll agree with this much: Those who run around quoting Leviticus'sprohibitions against homosexuality while eating pork have a lot ofexplaining to do. Indeed, those who ban gays from their churches whileadmitting those who are divorced have some explaining to do, too.(Jesusis not recorded ever to have mentioned homosexuality, but Matthewrecords him as having prohibited divorce, except on grounds ofinfidelity, on two separate occasions.) Those who "proof text" tend tobe rather selective, as indeed they need to be, since the storiescontained in...

Here's a real life question faced by most of us at some point in our lives and that I will soon face: Given our cultural context, what is the best thing to do with the last names of a couple that is to be married? The default position even today of the so-called "person on the street" is that the woman should take the man's last name. However, given the patriarchal ideology which this practice is a manifestation of, this seems like a social norm that ought to be violated until it no longer exists. But what to put in its place? I see three plausible alternatives: (1) both the man and the woman keep their original names; (2) the man takes the woman's name; (3) the man and the woman create a totally new last name that they choose to share in place of their former names. Option (3) seems best to me right now, because it seems to get the desired symbolic value of a common last name (it symbolizes the couple's unity and commitment to live their lives essentially together) without symbolically subordinating...

As you say, many people face this question. I'll quickly point outthat, in Massachusetts, it is not always a man and a woman who face it.Talk about subverting the patriarchal ideology. Indeed, I believe it'sprecisely because gay marriage (and more generally, the existence ofgay relationships) so profoundly upsets common practices andassumptions that so many people oppose it. (If two men get married, who's in charge?) That may not be theirconscious reason, of course, but I'm convinced that it is often the causallyactive one. You don't mention option 4, which is commonhyphenation. (Perhaps that's a version of option 3.) Then, of course,you face the problem of which order to use, but perhaps that could bedecided aesthetically or, if you want to make a political point, youcould put the woman's name first. And, speaking of aesthetics, you canget some pretty awful combinations. My brother and his wife weren'tabout to become the Hamm-Hecks. This option has the advantage (which itshares with options 2 and...

Pages