Ethics and Steroids

Off Topic
81

[quote]SWR wrote:
horsepuss wrote:
Fuck ethics, who’s ethics? Youre’s, mine, whos are we talking about.It might go against youre ethics to use AAS but not mine.

I have been around plenty of people who were on AAS including myself and I have never seen anyone of them flip out and get mad or hysterical and get into a big fight or get in there car and crash and kill people, But that happens every fucking day from alchohol.Is Alchohol unethical.

Yea, but how many times have you seen steroids mixed with making starting defense?! That’s the lethal combination that makes you put your head through car windows![/quote]

As far as I know only Lattimer did that.

82

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.

So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?

Can you name one?
Enforcing any Jim Crow law, for one. That’s too easy

Good point, but read my entire original post. Ethics for the generation that enacted the Jim Crow laws, whether right or wrong, were different than our Ethics today. Jim Crow Laws were repealed in 1965. Way before I was born. Lets try something that is still relevent.[/quote]

It seems like youre saying that ethics are subjective, which I don’t agree with. I think lessons from the past can be and are relevant to today.

83

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
orion wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
I thought this was about Ethics. Being Legal does not make you Ethical. Being Ethical makes you legal. Ethics takes you one step above legal.

So it is not even conceivable that following a law might be unethical?

Can you name one?
Enforcing any Jim Crow law, for one. That’s too easy

Good point, but read my entire original post. Ethics for the generation that enacted the Jim Crow laws, whether right or wrong, were different than our Ethics today. Jim Crow Laws were repealed in 1965. Way before I was born. Lets try something that is still relevent.

It seems like youre saying that ethics are subjective, which I don’t agree with. I think lessons from the past can be and are relevant to today.
[/quote]

I believe they are only subjective from a time of reference. I agree that we all must learn from the past. That is how our ethics evolve. I can tell you that perseved ethical behavior across this nation is different. The big question is whether each individuals ethics are correct or not. Laws give us somewhat of a benchmark of where our ethics are. I try to set my bench mark higher even though I am not always good. I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Just look at some of my posts. Ethics is a conversation that we need to start having. Just look at Politics, Wall Street, and News Reporting they have some really bad ethics overall. There are individuals in those fields that are beyond reproach, but the perceived ethical behavior of the lot is bad.

84

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
“Deontology, Utilitarianism, Virtue Theory, etc”
[/quote]

To me those don’t sound like media buzzwords used to put down roid users, but the foundation of a good ethical conversation.

I personally follow something similar to Aristotles virtue ideas. As a result I am slowly making the decision to use steroids in the future, becasue they alow you to become a stronger person.

I think a deontelogical perspective would be more interesting. If the maxim you are universalising is “take drugs” then that might not be a good thing, but “if you are limited in your progress by hormonal factors, take anabolic steroids” i think that would be fine.

Even in a theonomic or hetrologus perspective I can see little wrong with it. The Bible, and to my knowledge most religions don’t mention steroids. I have heard of certain variations on christianity where all drugs are avoided, but I don’t think mormon or historical catholic perspectives on coffee or tobaco can be applied to roids. The difference is that most drugs are bad for you, whereas steroids are so good for you that they are classified as “preformance enhancing” drugs. I’m pretty sure no one biblical would have a problem with that, unless you were cheating in a contest

85

[quote]itsthenickman wrote:
If steroids can make you better at your job (firefighter, cop, soldier, etc) is it not your duty to become better?[/quote]
Damn this guy knows his deontology; strength can be more than virtue it can be duty.

86

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]DOHCrazy wrote:
I’m not a Philosopher, but steroids are only cheating if used in competition against other people who aren’t using, or in a league where the rules state they are outlawed. (In this instance, them being illegal by law does not make personal use cheating.)

As far as any moral reasons, if one doesn’t believe in god and isn’t competing against tested athletes, then there is no moral reason not to use. Though there is no moral reason, some may choose to stay natural for health, economical, or situational reasons. [/quote]

Not sure what god has to do with taking steroids. One could have great Morals and still take steroids or for that matter not believe in God also. Maybe I missed your point, but God really has nothing to do with it. Sorry man! It just bothers me when someone puts God and Morals in the same sentence. If you feel it’s moral and want to take steroids, go do so. If you feel it’s immoral to take steroids then don’t. Just don’t bring God into the picture[/quote]

Morals have to come from a higher being than yourself, which means no man can “make up” morals, they have to be founded in something greater. Therefore, God.

87

Do I really need to take steroid if I want sick abs?

88

if you are using it to get an unfair advantage over your competition, and they arent aware of it or it is outlawed by the league, i think it is an ethical dilemma and cheating. if the league or competition has no rules, then they can either do it themselves to be on the level playing field or not participate.

if you are just doing it because you want to be big and are impatient and feel genetically maxed out, then why not? its technically only hurting you as long as you keep your temper and emotions under control. but, if you are running a moderate does with proper PCT it really doesnt hurt much, including yourself.

89

No, sorry, that’s pretty weak.

90

i think people should do some research about steroids before they decide whether they’re ethical or not… is it ethical to take a drug that has less cases of death and hospital trips than aspirin if it makes them a better athlete? i don’t see a problem with it. do steroids magically make you bigger stronger and faster? no… if you don’t put in the hard work and time, you’re results will be dick.

guys on steroids work probably a million times harder than guys without them. i know plenty of people on the juice, none of them are raging assholes (well some, but only because they’ve always been raging assholes), none of them, that use correctly, suffer from health problems.

steroids aren’t this evil wonder drug that the media has made them out to be, so before you make your decision as to whether or not they’re ethical, you should get a clue as to what the hell you’re talking about. and i’ll put it out there right now… i’m all for steroids, still haven’t used them, but when that bridge comes up and i can’t possibly go any further naturally, i’ll do the research required to make the right decision.

91

Even if steroids were a wonder drug that melted your fat off and packed on tons of muscle overnight, there is absolutely NO reason why it’d be unethical for anybody to take them except for athletes competing in leagues where they are banned. What somebody else wants to do to/put in his body is absolutely none of my concern…unless it’s a fat person eating garbage…in which case I’ll act all disgusted.

92

in sports or competition, its cheating period, youre altering your genetics.

outside of that if you wanna do it, go ahead, just dont try to act like youre something special.

93

Umm…no, you really aren’t altering your genetics. I’m pretty sure someone’s DNA pre/post cycle would be the same as their DNA during.
Rulebooks aside, is altering your hormone profile more cheating than getting surgery to improve your eyesight?

I didn’t realize people acted like they were something special for juicing.

94

[quote]beastmode02 wrote:
in sports or competition, its cheating period, youre altering your genetics.

outside of that if you wanna do it, go ahead, just dont try to act like youre something special.[/quote]

You don’t think Ronnie Coleman or Arnold Schwarzenegger are something special?

And I hope youre taking a little “poetic license” with the ‘atlering genetics’ nonsense.

95

[quote]beastmode02 wrote:
in sports or competition, its cheating period, youre altering your genetics.

outside of that if you wanna do it, go ahead, just dont try to act like youre something special.[/quote]

I am pretty sure you meant that first line to be taken metaphorically, so I am going to roll with it and take it a step further.

We have a moral obligation to extend the existence of the human race. In order to do this, we pass on only the best genetics via a process must of us know as natural selection. When one takes steroids, they “alter” their genetics, that is too say they improve upon them in some way not typically deemed to be natural. Once this happens, the person with the chemical enhancement now has a competetive advantage when it comes to mating and passing on his genome. Because of this advantage, a man may pass on substandard genetics because he only appears to have better genetics to the opposite race. In actually, his genetics may be inferior to a man that get’s passed over by a female of the species. In this way, we are altering the rules of natural selection and not fulfilling our moral obligation that ensures only the best genetics are the ones that get passed along.

In other words, just like as in sports, life in general is a competition.

96

Are steroids ethical is a multilayered question, looking at it from a “Biblical” perspective.

Is it wrong to take steriods period, obviously no some people need it medically. Is it wrong to take if if its not medically needed? No. Just like it is not wrong to drink alcohol.

But when would it become ethically wrong?
When it starts to do damage to urself…or others(and im not talking “roid rage”). Compared to drinkging again, it is wrong to hve alcohol but it becomes wrong when you have so much your killing ur body. Or you drink so much you cheat on your wife, beat your kills, or kill innocent people in a car accident. When you use steroids, know what you are doing and do it smart.

I think the whole its wrong to take it for competetive sport if its against the rules has been said enough.

Last way to look at it is the law of the land.
So steroids in and of itself is not wrong, just like its not wrong to drive 80 mpr.
But what about when the law prohibits the use of steroids, or a roads max speed is 65?

Thats where the question of ethics comes to play.

97

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]beastmode02 wrote:
in sports or competition, its cheating period, youre altering your genetics.

outside of that if you wanna do it, go ahead, just dont try to act like youre something special.[/quote]

I am pretty sure you meant that first line to be taken metaphorically, so I am going to roll with it and take it a step further.

We have a moral obligation to extend the existence of the human race. In order to do this, we pass on only the best genetics via a process must of us know as natural selection. When one takes steroids, they “alter” their genetics, that is too say they improve upon them in some way not typically deemed to be natural. Once this happens, the person with the chemical enhancement now has a competetive advantage when it comes to mating and passing on his genome. Because of this advantage, a man may pass on substandard genetics because he only appears to have better genetics to the opposite race. In actually, his genetics may be inferior to a man that get’s passed over by a female of the species. In this way, we are altering the rules of natural selection and not fulfilling our moral obligation that ensures only the best genetics are the ones that get passed along.

In other words, just like as in sports, life in general is a competition.[/quote]

According to your logic then, lifting weights, and watching your nutrition would seem to fall into the same category.

That’s like trying to say women shouldn’t wear makeup or push up bra’s. (Spanx ARE cheating BTW… lol :-p )

What if it’s the person who has the greatest intelligence and risk taking ability to use performance enhancing drugs is what makes them have the best genetics to pass on. Oh what a conundrum.

In general though I think your argument is flawed.

My logic is simple.
Goal of competitive sports: Be the best
Will steroids help make me be the best:
If yes, then use them.
If no, then don’t use them.

Rules be damned. No one follows the rules to be the best. The only rules are our own morals and logic. Just because I don’t follow a moral code doesn’t mean I don’t have values though.

98

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Morals have to come from a higher being than yourself[/quote]

Swing and a miss; sad. Try harder to troll better.

99

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
According to your logic then, lifting weights, and watching your nutrition would seem to fall into the same category.
[/quote]
No, these things help you to reach your genetic potential and display this potential to your potential mates. In no way does this misrepresent your genome, so it is permissible. I could actually argue that it would be immoral to not lift weights or watch your nutrition. Failing to do so and reach your true potential may prevent you from passing on otherwise very good genetic material. Then again, the attitudes and personalities that prevent one from working out are an undesireable trait that we may not want to be passed on anyways.

Actually, the direct opposite is true for women. Females are the choosers when it comes to mating. Even the ugliest, worst females get to pass on their genetic material, provided they are physically capable of breeding. However, some of these ugly women may have a very small pool of potential mates to choose from. By putting on makeup and push up bra’s and doctoring themselves up real nice, they become attractive to a much larger pool of men, allowing them more men to choose from. This then allows them to choose a mate with better genetic material than they otherwise would have had access to. It’s therefore imperative that women do their best to look good. This makes sure the better men have more partners and the men with poor genetic material mate less.

Risk-taking ability is only good in moderation, from a selection point of view.

I reject the premise that only those with the greatest intelligence take steroids, so a conundrum there is not.

[quote]
In general though I think your argument is flawed.

My logic is simple.
Goal of competitive sports: Be the best
Will steroids help make me be the best:
If yes, then use them.
If no, then don’t use them.

Rules be damned. No one follows the rules to be the best. The only rules are our own morals and logic. Just because I don’t follow a moral code doesn’t mean I don’t have values though.[/quote]

Again I reject the premise, but I didn’t mean for my original post to have anything to do with the sporting world. Anyways, without rules you have no sport. The goal of competitive sports is actually to be the best within the confines of these rules.

100

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
According to your logic then, lifting weights, and watching your nutrition would seem to fall into the same category.
[/quote]
No, these things help you to reach your genetic potential and display this potential to your potential mates. In no way does this misrepresent your genome, so it is permissible. I could actually argue that it would be immoral to not lift weights or watch your nutrition. Failing to do so and reach your true potential may prevent you from passing on otherwise very good genetic material. Then again, the attitudes and personalities that prevent one from working out are an undesireable trait that we may not want to be passed on anyways.

Actually, the direct opposite is true for women. Females are the choosers when it comes to mating. Even the ugliest, worst females get to pass on their genetic material, provided they are physically capable of breeding. However, some of these ugly women may have a very small pool of potential mates to choose from. By putting on makeup and push up bra’s and doctoring themselves up real nice, they become attractive to a much larger pool of men, allowing them more men to choose from. This then allows them to choose a mate with better genetic material than they otherwise would have had access to. It’s therefore imperative that women do their best to look good. This makes sure the better men have more partners and the men with poor genetic material mate less.

Risk-taking ability is only good in moderation, from a selection point of view.

I reject the premise that only those with the greatest intelligence take steroids, so a conundrum there is not.

Why does supplemental testosterone ‘misrepresent’ one’s genome but not lifting weights? What about gains made from creatine? What about men on TRT?

There is nothing natural about lifting man made rods of steel over and over.

Your argument sucks gorilla balls.

Your last point about being the best while following rules of a sport is correct.