Abstract
In this article, we critically discuss different versions of the fairness objection to the legalisation of neuro-doping. According to this objection, legalising neuro-doping will result in some enjoying an unfair advantage over others. Basically, we assess four versions. These focus on: 1) the unequal opportunities of winning for athletes who use neuro-doping and for those who do not; 2) the unfair advantages specifically for wealthy athletes; 3) the unfairness of athletic advantages not derived from athletes’ own training (conventionally understood); and 4) the unfair health care costs imposed on everyone as a result of athletes’ use of neuro-doping. We conclude that none of these versions offer a convincing principled fairness-based objection to legalising neuro-doping.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Neuroethics |
| Vol/bind | 14 |
| Udgave nummer | 2 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 179-190 |
| Antal sider | 12 |
| ISSN | 1874-5490 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - nov. 2021 |
Emneord
- Doping
- Fairness
- Fair play
- Neuro-doping
- Sport
Citationsformater
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver