188 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking
extends to others as well. For example, the
strongest argument for banning smoking in
public places is that non-smokers as well as
smokers are affected. If the argument were only
that smoking harms the smoker, it would not
have anything like the force that it does have.
So the argument contained in the first two
paragraphs alone looks a bit wobbly after all,
not from what it states but from what it
assumes. However, the author was probably
well aware of this because his argument does
not end there. It goes on to say (paragraph 3):
‘But there is another reason... (for not
tolerating PED)’.The argument from fairness
The second main strand of the reasoning is the
argument that it is unfair, in fact cheating, to
take PED, and that they should be prohibited
for that reason as well as the health risks.
Paragraph 3 concludes that if drugs can be
driven out of sport we will (once again) be able
to identify the ‘real champions’.
There is another assumption lurking here:
that there are not some other ways, besides
PED, of gaining unfair advantages. To meet that
possible objection, the author sets out, and
responds to, a counter-argument that there are
indeed some practices that are perfectly
legitimate but are cheating of a sort. The
author’s response is that PED are in a different
class, precisely because they are prohibited.Give your evaluation of the author’s response
to the counter-argument in paragraph 5. Is
the reasoning sound, or can you see any
flaws in it?Activity
Commentary
There are in fact three serious flaws that need
to be looked at very carefully. These are known
as the ‘straw man’, the ‘slippery slope’ and
‘begging the question’. Two of them relate to
the last sentence of paragraph 5: ‘Anyway, ifCommentary
The argument in the first two paragraphs is as
follows:
R1 Medical evidence and past experience
suggest that performance-enhancing
drugs (PED) are harmful.
R2 Young athletes are reckless.
R3 To stand by while they harm themselves
would be irresponsible.IC The governing bodies have a ‘duty of
care’ for athletes.C They are right to prohibit PED.This seems a reasonable argument. If you
accept the truth of the premises, and there is
no obvious reason not to, then a strict ban on
PED would seem like a sensible policy to
follow. But ‘sensible’ does not necessarily
mean ‘right’, and that brings us to the big
assumption that the argument makes: that
athletes don’t have the right to make these
choices for themselves; or that the authorities
do have the right to make the choices for
them, just on the grounds of the dangers PED
may pose to their health.
The argument from harm (or risk or danger)
to the need for prohibition is often
underpinned by this kind of assumption: that
those in charge have the right to tell grown
men and women what they may or may not
do to their own bodies. Is it a warranted
assumption? In general, no. Of course,
authorities do on occasions impose rules for
our own good or safety. Many countries
prohibit the riding of motorcycles without a
crash helmet, or driving of cars without a
safety belt. But there are many other dangerous
activities which we are not prevented from
doing (such as mountaineering and skydiving)
on the grounds that although they are
dangerous, we nevertheless have the right to
do them if we want. Usually a prohibition
needs other arguments beside the argument
from self-harm, for example that the harm