It was recently demonstrated by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs during the seven years when he won the Tour de France. During the same period, Armstrong started Livestrong, a cancer-support organization known for its ubiquitous yellow bracelets. Is the unethical nature of Lance's doping offset by the fact that his Livestrong organization has touched many lives in a positive way? Is it even right to consider Livestrong in our ethical analysis of Armstrong's doping? MYRIAH JAWORSKI, WASHINGTON
The specific ethical problem with Armstrong's use of performance-enhancing drugs is debatable. What's less debatable are the unethical extensions of that behavior, the treatment of his teammates and his willingness to perpetuate a conspiracy that willfully deceived his supporters. But that's not really your inquiry. What you're asking is how we're supposed to weigh the many bad things Armstrong did against the very good charity he created.
Our natural reaction is to try and separate his various actions into free-standing fragments. This allows us to see some of Armstrong's acts as good (fighting cancer) and some of his acts as bad (lying, cheating, etc.) without making an overarching judgment. It operates from the reasonable position that good people can still do bad things (and vice versa), and it makes it feel as if all these issues are disconnected.
But in Armstrong's case, they are connected. If he does not cheat, he presumably does not dominate the Tour de France; if he does not dominate the Tour de France, his own personal recovery from testicular cancer is less inspiring; if his story isn't as inspiring, he does not become a celebrity; if he's not a celebrity, Livestrong's ability to help people would be muted.
There is no question that Armstrong helped more cancer victims by cheating than he would have through any attempt at winning the Tour de France by natural means. But this is not a sufficient answer. It suggests that Armstrong took drugs in order to eventually create a charity, and that's almost certainly untrue (they're connected, but not causal).
This is ultimately a question about motive. A cynic might argue that even Armstrong's involvement with Livestrong was self-serving, since its beneficence made people want to believe he was not lying about his own impropriety. Yet this is mere speculation. We don't know Armstrong's true motives, and we clearly can't believe whatever he claims those motives were. All we can do is work with the accepted reality: Armstrong helped the lives of many cancer victims by being the most talented cheater within a sport where cheating is rampant. Now, does that positive conclusion "offset" the unethical exploits that allowed it to occur? I would say it does not. And I say this because they are too interdependent to isolate and judge. There is no right or wrong way to feel about Armstrong, but however you feel should be based on the totality of his career. Everything has to matter.
E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
The Ethicist: The Lance Armstrong Conundrum
Dengan url
http://koraninternetonline.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-ethicist-lance-armstrong-conundrum.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
The Ethicist: The Lance Armstrong Conundrum
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
The Ethicist: The Lance Armstrong Conundrum
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar