1.Should there be any limits to drugs in sport? There is one limit: safety. We do not want an Olympics in which people die before, during, or after competition. What matters is health and fitness to c

1.Should there be any limits to drugs in sport? There is one limit: safety. We do not want an Olympics in which people die before, during, or after competition. What matters is health and fitness to compete. Rather than testing for drugs, we should focus more on health and fitness to compete. Forget testing for EPO, monitor the PCV. We need to set a safe level of PCV. In the cycling world, that is 0.5. Anyone with a PCV above that level, whether through the use of drugs, training, or natural mutation, should be prevented from participating on safety grounds. If someone naturally has a PCV of 0.6 and is allowed to compete, then that risk is reasonable and everyone should be allowed to increase their PCV to 0.6. What matters is what is a safe concentration of growth hormone—not whether it is natural or artificial.  

Now identify the conclusion of this argumentative passage and its main supporting premises.  

2.In an arms race, there are only two stable scenarios: perpetual escalation, and disarmament--a league where all PEDs are pursued, or a league where none are. The best way to avoid this escalation is to ban the arms outright and enforce penalties on cheaters. Change everyone's incentives, and the arms race will never begin. In a real, international arms race, this is notoriously difficult to do, since internationally sanctioned bodies are weak and few states have the power or will to impose penalties unilaterally. But in baseball's arms race, Major League Baseball has long had the power to punish players who cheat. Fortunately, it now looks like it also has the will. 

Now identify the conclusion of this argumentative passage and its main supporting premises. 

3.One of the major concerns about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in competitive sports is that legalizing them would promote unfairness. How do Savulescu, Foddy, and Clayton respond to this objection? Do you consider their response plausible? Why or why not? 

4.Gavin Enck advocates the following institutional rule for the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs: “Students are permitted to use cognitive enhancers if their reasons for using these enhancements are reflective of ideals of human excellence.” How does Enck argue for this standard, and what would its implications be? Do you agree with Enck that this is a reasonable standard for determine when the use of cognitive enhancers is permissible? Why or why not? 

5.Why does Jon Danaher believe that universities are justified in attempting to regulate the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs? Explain his argument and his proposed method of regulating student use of cognitive-enhancing drugs. Do you agree with Danaher’s argument and his proposed method of regulation? Why or why not?  

6. Imagine for a moment that you have obtained a leadership position in the newly formed International Sports Governing Organization (ISGO). This group has been tasked with developing rules and regulations that apply across all professional sports. One of the first issues on their agenda is the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Some members of ISGO advocate legalizing performance-enhancing drugs to promote athletes’ autonomy and eliminate inconsistencies in how punishments for using these drugs are administered. Other members of ISGO fear that legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would promote inequality and undermine the spirit of competitive sport. 

As member of this board, do you vote in favor of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs or keeping them illegal? Why? How do you respond to the objections that have been voiced to your position by other members of ISGO? If you favor keeping some performance-enhancing drugs illegal, then what criteria do you use to distinguish between those that are permissible to use and those that aren’t? And why? 

7. One common claim made in moral debates about human enhancement is that widespread practice of human enhancement will increase inequality. Often, this claim is used to justify a prohibition on human enhancement technology. How does Walter Veit respond to this objection in the context of cognitive enhancement? Do you consider his response reasonable, or are the concerns about increasing inequality too strong to dismiss? Explain your reasoning