Thomas Søbirk Petersen | Roskilde University (original) (raw)
Papers by Thomas Søbirk Petersen
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2022
The aim of this article is to present and critically discuss a gametheory-based argument in favou... more The aim of this article is to present and critically discuss a gametheory-based argument in favour of the view that sports organizations ought to ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. After presenting the argument in detail, I try to show that the argument is not convincing. First, the argument cannot be used to argue in favour of WADA's (World Anti-Doping Agency) current ban on doping, at least if it rests on the assumption, that doping use is always harmful. However, that in itself may not be a problem for adherents of the argument, and they can and should modify the harm assumption to cover only harmful use of doping. Second, even with this modification, it is argued that the harm assumption is flawed, for example, because it is not obvious why we should accept certain harms in sport but not harm to athletes caused by doping. Third, the argument is also flawed because it entails the non-competitive assumption: if all athletes dope, then no competitive advantages are gained by any athletes assumptions. The noncompetitive assumption is challenged in view of the observations that doping can have some non-competitive advantages and is, so to speak, not only a positional good and because doping, due to unequal responsiveness, can give some highly responsive athletes a competitive advantage over less responsive athletes.
The Cryopolitics of Reproduction on Ice: A New Scandinavian Ice Age, 2019
Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the followin... more The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the following question: How should decision-makers deal with conflicts that arise when the values usually entailed in ethical guidelines – such as accuracy, privacy, non-discrimination and transparency – for the use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g. algorithm-based sentencing) clash with one another? To begin with, I focus on clarifying some of the general advantages of using such guidelines in an ethical analysis of the use of AI. Some disadvantages will also be presented and critically discussed. Second, I will show that we need to distinguish between three kinds of conflict that can exist for ethical guidelines used in the moral assessment of AI. This section will be followed by a critical discussion of different answers to the question of how to handle what we shall call internal and external values conflicts. Finally, I will wrap up with a critical discussion of three different strategies to res...
Bioethics, Apr 23, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. Lavazza thinks this argument applies in a wide range of competitive contexts and one of his two main examples is sport, which is the context we will focus on in this article. Essentially, tDCS is a non-invasive and painless brain stimulation that delivers electric impulses to particular parts of the brain. Some studies show that tDCS can improve athletic performance by, for instance, increasing motor skills and reducing perception of fatigue. The same studies, however, also show that there are significant differences in individuals’ responsiveness to tDCS. Although Lavazza’s focus is on the use of tDCS and how we should deal, morally speaking, with the fact that people respond differently when using tDCS, his argument for compensation applies to all kinds of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports, where there is a difference in responsiveness. This renders his argument more interesting. Below we argue that his argument for his compensation view in sports is flawed. More positively, we suggest that fairness in sport has a large conventional element and, within certain constraints, is satisfied if rules of the sport are public and athletes comply with the rules. This positive view of fairness applies to the use of tDCS, but it also applies much more widely to all other forms of doping and training methods.
Ugeskrift for Læger, 2003
Bioethics, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. First, we argue that Lavazza's proposal to compensate athletes who are non-responsive to tDCS is practically unfeasible. Second, the compensation principle-which he appeals to in his defense of his compensation scheme-is false, as it is incoherent to focus only on the compensation of athletes who respond less well to tDCS, and not to compensate athletes who respond less well to all other types of enhancers such as mental training and food supplements.
Theoria, 2008
The aim of this paper is to discuss the plausibility of a certain position in the philosophical l... more The aim of this paper is to discuss the plausibility of a certain position in the philosophical literature within which the Repugnant Conclusion is treated, not as repugnant, but as an acceptable implication of the total welfare principle. i will confine myself to focus primarily on Törbjörn Tännsjö's presentation. First, i reconstruct Tännsjö's view concerning the repugnance of the RC in two arguments. The first argument is criticized for (a) addressing the wrong comparison, (b) relying on the controversial claim that the privileged people in our actual world only have lives barely worth living and (c) that Tännsjö's identification between Z-lives and privileged lives is restricted to certain versions of the notion 'barely worth living'-a restriction that weakens the force of the argument. The second argument is criticized because some of it premises entailed (b) and (d) for its implausible claim that non-imaginable outcomes cannot be compared.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2005
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2011
Five arguments are presented in favour of the proposal that people who opt in as organ donors sho... more Five arguments are presented in favour of the proposal that people who opt in as organ donors should receive a tax break. These arguments appeal to welfare, autonomy, fairness, distributive justice and selfownership, respectively. Eight worries about the proposal are considered in this paper. These objections focus upon no-effect and counter-productiveness, the Titmuss concern about social meaning, exploitation of the poor, commodification, inequality and unequal status, the notion that there are better alternatives, unacceptable expense, and concerns about the veto of relatives. The paper argues that none of the objections to the proposal is very telling.
Bioethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to argue that one of the central arguments against company sponsored n... more The aim of this article is to argue that one of the central arguments against company sponsored
non-medical egg freezing, namely that this practice is contrary to the reproductive autonomy of
women, can be difficult to sustain under certain conditions. More specifically, we argue that
company sponsored egg freezing is not necessarily in conflict with the three most common
requirements for autonomous choice. That is, there is no reason to assume that employees
cannot be adequately informed about what is scientifically known about the practice
beforehand, or that they lack the required capacity to understand and process this information.
Although they may feel a certain pressure to comply with the wishes of their employer, this
concern can plausibly be alleviated through privacy regulations. In any event, such pressure is
arguably not stronger or relevantly different from other types of pressure that most people
readily accept on the labour market. Finally, we argue that company sponsored non-medical
egg freezing may mitigate certain types of oppressive socialization, yet it may well perpetuate
others, and should in any case arguably be dealt with through guidelines and counselling which
will ensure that women make autonomous choices when companies offer egg freezing.
Bioethics, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability.
Lavazza thinks this argument applies in a wide range of competitive contexts and one of his two main examples is sport, which is the context we will focus on in this article.
Essentially, tDCS is a non-invasive and painless brain stimulation that delivers electric impulses to particular parts of the brain. Some studies show that tDCS can improve athletic performance by, for instance, increasing motor skills and reducing perception of fatigue. The
same studies, however, also show that there are significant differences in individuals’ responsiveness to tDCS. Although Lavazza’s focus is on the use of tDCS and how we should deal, morally speaking, with the fact that people respond differently when using tDCS, his
argument for compensation applies to all kinds of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports, where there is a difference in responsiveness. This renders his argument more interesting.
Below we argue that his argument for his compensation view in sports is flawed. More positively, we suggest that fairness in sport has a large conventional element and, within certain constraints, is satisfied if rules of the sport are public and athletes comply with the rules. This
positive view of fairness applies to the use of tDCS, but it also applies much more widely to all other forms of doping and training methods.
Etikk i Prakkis: Nordic Journal for Applied Ethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the followin... more The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the following question: How should decision-makers deal with conflicts that arise when the values usually entailed in ethical guidelines-such as accuracy, privacy, nondiscrimination and transparency-for the use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g. algorithm-based sentencing) clash with one another? To begin with, I focus on clarifying some of the general advantages of using such guidelines in an ethical analysis of the use of AI. Some disadvantages will also be presented and critically discussed. Second, I will show that we need to distinguish between three kinds of conflict that can exist for ethical guidelines used in the moral assessment of AI. This section will be followed by a critical discussion of different answers to the question of how to handle what we shall call internal and external values conflicts. Finally, I will wrap up with a critical discussion of three different strategies to resolve what is called a 'genuine value conflict'. These strategies are: the 'accepting the existence of irresolvable conflict' view, the ranking view, and value monism. This article defends the 'accepting the existence of irresolvable conflict' view. It also argues that even though the ranking view and value monism, from a merely theoretical (or philosophical) point of view, are better equipped to solve genuine value conflicts among values in ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence, this is not the case in real-life decision-making.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012
Doping in Sport, 2021
The intention of this chapter is to challenge WADA's central argument for the prohibited list. Na... more The intention of this chapter is to challenge WADA's central argument for the prohibited list. Namely, that doping is contrary to the spirit of sport. However, this argument raises some obvious questions. What is the spirit of sport? Should we always punish an action because it is contrary to the spirit of sport? Is it always morally wrong
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2022
The aim of this article is to present and critically discuss a gametheory-based argument in favou... more The aim of this article is to present and critically discuss a gametheory-based argument in favour of the view that sports organizations ought to ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. After presenting the argument in detail, I try to show that the argument is not convincing. First, the argument cannot be used to argue in favour of WADA's (World Anti-Doping Agency) current ban on doping, at least if it rests on the assumption, that doping use is always harmful. However, that in itself may not be a problem for adherents of the argument, and they can and should modify the harm assumption to cover only harmful use of doping. Second, even with this modification, it is argued that the harm assumption is flawed, for example, because it is not obvious why we should accept certain harms in sport but not harm to athletes caused by doping. Third, the argument is also flawed because it entails the non-competitive assumption: if all athletes dope, then no competitive advantages are gained by any athletes assumptions. The noncompetitive assumption is challenged in view of the observations that doping can have some non-competitive advantages and is, so to speak, not only a positional good and because doping, due to unequal responsiveness, can give some highly responsive athletes a competitive advantage over less responsive athletes.
The Cryopolitics of Reproduction on Ice: A New Scandinavian Ice Age, 2019
Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the followin... more The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the following question: How should decision-makers deal with conflicts that arise when the values usually entailed in ethical guidelines – such as accuracy, privacy, non-discrimination and transparency – for the use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g. algorithm-based sentencing) clash with one another? To begin with, I focus on clarifying some of the general advantages of using such guidelines in an ethical analysis of the use of AI. Some disadvantages will also be presented and critically discussed. Second, I will show that we need to distinguish between three kinds of conflict that can exist for ethical guidelines used in the moral assessment of AI. This section will be followed by a critical discussion of different answers to the question of how to handle what we shall call internal and external values conflicts. Finally, I will wrap up with a critical discussion of three different strategies to res...
Bioethics, Apr 23, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. Lavazza thinks this argument applies in a wide range of competitive contexts and one of his two main examples is sport, which is the context we will focus on in this article. Essentially, tDCS is a non-invasive and painless brain stimulation that delivers electric impulses to particular parts of the brain. Some studies show that tDCS can improve athletic performance by, for instance, increasing motor skills and reducing perception of fatigue. The same studies, however, also show that there are significant differences in individuals’ responsiveness to tDCS. Although Lavazza’s focus is on the use of tDCS and how we should deal, morally speaking, with the fact that people respond differently when using tDCS, his argument for compensation applies to all kinds of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports, where there is a difference in responsiveness. This renders his argument more interesting. Below we argue that his argument for his compensation view in sports is flawed. More positively, we suggest that fairness in sport has a large conventional element and, within certain constraints, is satisfied if rules of the sport are public and athletes comply with the rules. This positive view of fairness applies to the use of tDCS, but it also applies much more widely to all other forms of doping and training methods.
Ugeskrift for Læger, 2003
Bioethics, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. First, we argue that Lavazza's proposal to compensate athletes who are non-responsive to tDCS is practically unfeasible. Second, the compensation principle-which he appeals to in his defense of his compensation scheme-is false, as it is incoherent to focus only on the compensation of athletes who respond less well to tDCS, and not to compensate athletes who respond less well to all other types of enhancers such as mental training and food supplements.
Theoria, 2008
The aim of this paper is to discuss the plausibility of a certain position in the philosophical l... more The aim of this paper is to discuss the plausibility of a certain position in the philosophical literature within which the Repugnant Conclusion is treated, not as repugnant, but as an acceptable implication of the total welfare principle. i will confine myself to focus primarily on Törbjörn Tännsjö's presentation. First, i reconstruct Tännsjö's view concerning the repugnance of the RC in two arguments. The first argument is criticized for (a) addressing the wrong comparison, (b) relying on the controversial claim that the privileged people in our actual world only have lives barely worth living and (c) that Tännsjö's identification between Z-lives and privileged lives is restricted to certain versions of the notion 'barely worth living'-a restriction that weakens the force of the argument. The second argument is criticized because some of it premises entailed (b) and (d) for its implausible claim that non-imaginable outcomes cannot be compared.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2005
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2011
Five arguments are presented in favour of the proposal that people who opt in as organ donors sho... more Five arguments are presented in favour of the proposal that people who opt in as organ donors should receive a tax break. These arguments appeal to welfare, autonomy, fairness, distributive justice and selfownership, respectively. Eight worries about the proposal are considered in this paper. These objections focus upon no-effect and counter-productiveness, the Titmuss concern about social meaning, exploitation of the poor, commodification, inequality and unequal status, the notion that there are better alternatives, unacceptable expense, and concerns about the veto of relatives. The paper argues that none of the objections to the proposal is very telling.
Bioethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to argue that one of the central arguments against company sponsored n... more The aim of this article is to argue that one of the central arguments against company sponsored
non-medical egg freezing, namely that this practice is contrary to the reproductive autonomy of
women, can be difficult to sustain under certain conditions. More specifically, we argue that
company sponsored egg freezing is not necessarily in conflict with the three most common
requirements for autonomous choice. That is, there is no reason to assume that employees
cannot be adequately informed about what is scientifically known about the practice
beforehand, or that they lack the required capacity to understand and process this information.
Although they may feel a certain pressure to comply with the wishes of their employer, this
concern can plausibly be alleviated through privacy regulations. In any event, such pressure is
arguably not stronger or relevantly different from other types of pressure that most people
readily accept on the labour market. Finally, we argue that company sponsored non-medical
egg freezing may mitigate certain types of oppressive socialization, yet it may well perpetuate
others, and should in any case arguably be dealt with through guidelines and counselling which
will ensure that women make autonomous choices when companies offer egg freezing.
Bioethics, 2021
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of ... more In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability.
Lavazza thinks this argument applies in a wide range of competitive contexts and one of his two main examples is sport, which is the context we will focus on in this article.
Essentially, tDCS is a non-invasive and painless brain stimulation that delivers electric impulses to particular parts of the brain. Some studies show that tDCS can improve athletic performance by, for instance, increasing motor skills and reducing perception of fatigue. The
same studies, however, also show that there are significant differences in individuals’ responsiveness to tDCS. Although Lavazza’s focus is on the use of tDCS and how we should deal, morally speaking, with the fact that people respond differently when using tDCS, his
argument for compensation applies to all kinds of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports, where there is a difference in responsiveness. This renders his argument more interesting.
Below we argue that his argument for his compensation view in sports is flawed. More positively, we suggest that fairness in sport has a large conventional element and, within certain constraints, is satisfied if rules of the sport are public and athletes comply with the rules. This
positive view of fairness applies to the use of tDCS, but it also applies much more widely to all other forms of doping and training methods.
Etikk i Prakkis: Nordic Journal for Applied Ethics, 2021
The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the followin... more The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the following question: How should decision-makers deal with conflicts that arise when the values usually entailed in ethical guidelines-such as accuracy, privacy, nondiscrimination and transparency-for the use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g. algorithm-based sentencing) clash with one another? To begin with, I focus on clarifying some of the general advantages of using such guidelines in an ethical analysis of the use of AI. Some disadvantages will also be presented and critically discussed. Second, I will show that we need to distinguish between three kinds of conflict that can exist for ethical guidelines used in the moral assessment of AI. This section will be followed by a critical discussion of different answers to the question of how to handle what we shall call internal and external values conflicts. Finally, I will wrap up with a critical discussion of three different strategies to resolve what is called a 'genuine value conflict'. These strategies are: the 'accepting the existence of irresolvable conflict' view, the ranking view, and value monism. This article defends the 'accepting the existence of irresolvable conflict' view. It also argues that even though the ranking view and value monism, from a merely theoretical (or philosophical) point of view, are better equipped to solve genuine value conflicts among values in ethical guidelines for artificial intelligence, this is not the case in real-life decision-making.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012
Doping in Sport, 2021
The intention of this chapter is to challenge WADA's central argument for the prohibited list. Na... more The intention of this chapter is to challenge WADA's central argument for the prohibited list. Namely, that doping is contrary to the spirit of sport. However, this argument raises some obvious questions. What is the spirit of sport? Should we always punish an action because it is contrary to the spirit of sport? Is it always morally wrong
Routledge, 2024
This book addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention (SCP). It seeks not only to analys... more This book addresses the ethics of situational crime prevention (SCP). It seeks not only to analyse specific SCP strategies, but to demonstrate how ethical analysis can support and improve the implementation of SCP measures. The author analyses several SCP strategies that have not been treated in detail in the criminology or applied ethics literatures, including gated communities, excluding people with a criminal record from housing or employment, enhanced surveillance and lighting in public and private spaces, and the implementation of intelligent speed adaption in vehicles.
The Cryopolitics of Reproduction on Ice: A New Scandinavian Ice Age, 2020
Why Criminalize? New Perspectives on Normative Principles of Criminalization, 2020
• Offers a brand new criticism of well-known and central principles of criminalization • Deliver... more • Offers a brand new criticism of well-known and central principles of criminalization
• Delivers the first modern (since the days of Bentham and Mill) defense of a utilitarian principle of criminalization
• Advances our thoughts and reasons for action about a very important question that concerns us all, namely by which moral principle(s) should the state's criminalization decisions be guided?
Fri Doping: Et forsvar for en ny dopingpolitik, 2018
Dopingdebatten er præget af tunnelsyn. Det er blevet et mantra, at doping er umoralsk og bør være... more Dopingdebatten er præget af tunnelsyn. Det er blevet et mantra, at doping er umoralsk og bør være strafbart og den kritiske stemme mod gældende dopingpolitik er derfor så godt som ikke eksisterende. Med Fri Doping ønsker jeg at lade kritikken af den officielle dopingpolitik få en stemme. Fri Doping er en debatskabende bog om et aktuelt emne - som de fleste har en mening om - og som bygger på videnskabelig forskning og hvor de meste centrale argumenter i debatten får en fair trial.
Emnet er desuden af samfundsmæssig vigtighed, da hvilke stoffer og metoder, som er forbudt i sportens verden, har stor betydning for en lang række menneskers gøren og laden, f.eks. sportsfolk, pårørende, trænere, sportsledere, idrætsmedicinere, medicinalfirmaer, sponsorer, sportsjournalister. For alle disse vil bogen være aktuel, relevant og debatskabende.