tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post3633832953498903186..comments2023-09-28T05:05:02.102-07:00Comments on Gavagai!: Alva Noe and the naturalistic cyborg fallacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-68367425845079250992012-12-11T00:39:45.759-08:002012-12-11T00:39:45.759-08:00"The problem I believe Noe has was that we ha..."The problem I believe Noe has was that we have no principled way to determine what makes an advantage UNFAIR."<br /><br />If this is what he is saying then he'd clearly be wrong. there are principled ways to distinguish between fair and unfair advantages. If there are no ways to distinguish, indeed, if there is nothing to distinguish between fair and unfair ways, then launching shotputs with canons would be allowed in field competition but that is clearly ridiculous. That clearly is unfair. But for some cases, it may be a gray area. But that's irrelevant because if the gray is made into black and white by rules, the rules then ought to be obeyed by everyone (or why else have them?). If only some obey while others cheat, those who cheat would have an unfair advantage.<br /><br />I don't think that criticism is what he is saying at all. <br /><br />"Clearly all of Armstrong's competitors could have afforded to buy PEDs."<br /><br />This is irrelevant. The issue isn't whether they could afford TO BUY THE DRUGS. The issue is can they afford to CHEAT. It costs millions for Armstrong's team to cheat and it also costs in other resources (such as certain social connections to ruling bodies) which many competitors don't have. See here:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/sports/cycling/how-lance-armstrong-beat-cyclings-drug-tests.html?_r=2&hp&<br /><br />"The dangerous behavior objection seems way off the mark. Professional sports is very often itself a dangerous behavior, and putting one's life at risk in engaging in it is not always seen as cheating. The athlete who exercises until he is dehydrated is doing something very dangerous, but we do not disqualify him for his actions."<br /><br />Actually no, few people have died in cycling competitions but the point is whether someone is taking *unnecessary* risks with their health. <br /><br />"The explicit aim of shotput is to see how far one can throw a shot."<br /><br />Do you have a "principled" way to distinguish between "throwing" and "non throwing"? <br /><br />"Using a cannon is not cheating"<br /><br />That's silly. If someone used a canon in competition he'd be banned for cheating, he wouldn't be "not participating in the sport" he'd be thrown out for cheating (and rightfully so).<br /><br />Besides, it's not just canons. You can't cybernetically modify yourself to give yourself an unfair advantage (and this was his point actually that you can or ought to). Obviously, those wearing robotic arm enhancements that give them an unfair advantage shouldn't be allowed in shotput competitions (and they are not) either. That would be unfair. They are throwing (in your words) the shotput (with their cybernetic arms) but there are rules disallowing such uses. See here<br /><br />http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/iaaf-council-introduces-rule-regarding-techni<br /><br />We saw this with the 400 meter S. African sprinter Oscar Pistorius who was almost banned from running against able bodied athletes because he had prosthetic legs. He was only allowed to compete in the Olympics when it was determined that his legs did not give him any unfair advantage over those who did not have that body modification.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics NChenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925449187109030870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-31437860962437940782012-12-10T17:02:56.815-08:002012-12-10T17:02:56.815-08:00The problem I believe Noe has was that we have no ...The problem I believe Noe has was that we have no principled way to determine what makes an advantage UNFAIR. It cannot simply be a non-sports related advantage, for example an economic advantage. Clearly all of Armstrong's competitors could have afforded to buy PEDs. Also, if someone is independently wealthy, they can dedicate all their time to exercising and practicing, while their less wealthy counterparts will have much less free time to improve their athletic craft. This is clearly a huge advantage, based on what you called "arbitrary criteria," but we do not see the wealthy athlete as a cheater in the way the PED user is. <br />The dangerous behavior objection seems way off the mark. Professional sports is very often itself a dangerous behavior, and putting one's life at risk in engaging in it is not always seen as cheating. The athlete who exercises until he is dehydrated is doing something very dangerous, but we do not disqualify him for his actions.<br />The cannon argument is just ridiculous. The explicit aim of shotput is to see how far one can throw a shot. Using a cannon is not cheating, it is just not engaging in the sport. Lines are indeed drawn as to what is and is not acceptable, and Noe recognizes that PEDs are against the rules, his argument was that they should not be.<br />I think Noe's argument is that given that there is no principled way to rule over-exercising in but PED use out, the distinction is based on some misguided notion of what is "natural." <br />Neither health-risks or fairness are unique to PEDs, so why should we see PEDs as unacceptable.Gabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564296740265548986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-15528316598474792152012-12-06T20:58:51.439-08:002012-12-06T20:58:51.439-08:00What singles out PEDs as wrong is that it gives AN...What singles out PEDs as wrong is that it gives AN UNFAIR advantage to those who use them and it encourages dangerous behavior (EPO use is shown to cause heart trouble and even death).<br /><br />Some people cannot afford in both economic resources nor in other resources (such as the right social/political connections, technological connections, etc) to cheat. <br /><br />Sports is about natural ability and hard work and dedication. It shouldn't be about arbitrary, non sports related criteria like the above mentioned.<br /><br />As someone humorously pointed out in the comments, if we can't draw lines between what is and isn't acceptable in rules for athletic competition, shotputers would be allowed to use canons to launch shotputs. Lines have to be drawn as to what are and aren't acceptable for use to enhance one's performance. <br /><br />Armstrong knowingly broke those rules. That's inexcusable as Noe seems to think it is.NChenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925449187109030870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-32670212772379530922012-12-01T00:28:06.303-08:002012-12-01T00:28:06.303-08:00Could an argument that what he did was not wrong r...Could an argument that what he did was not wrong rely on the fact that there are many ways that one athlete can get an advantage over another, and that it is unclear why using PEDs should be seen as an illegitimate way of doing this. The athlete who forgoes his marriage and heads to the ice-rink at 3:30am everyday has an advantage over others, but we do not blame him. Clearly the latter is not outlawed by the codes of the sport (or the organizing bodies), but we are not merely saying that Armstrong broke the rules, but that what he did was wrong. What is it that makes PEDs wrong while sacrificing a marriage and a normal life is acceptable, virtuous even? <br />Noe's point is that humans, athletes in particular, do many things in order to get advantages. What singles PEDs out as wrong? <br />It is worth noting that merely being against the rules or being dangerous are not sufficient for being morally wrong. Holding penalties in football and handballs in soccer constitute breaking the rules, but are not seen as "wrong." The very existence of boxing and football are sufficient to show that we see no intrinsic evil in athlete's risking their well-being or even their lives for the sake of athletic achievement. Gabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02564296740265548986noreply@blogger.com