Artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i den norske idrettsmodellen der topp og bredde hører sammen, og der toppidrettsutøvere uvegerlig blir rollemodeller for barn og unge. Den moderne toppidretten er i økende grad preget av egoistiske holdninger der det dreier seg hele tiden om å skaffe seg fordeler. I denne artikkelen tar jeg opp egoisme, rettferdighet og sjenerøsitet som tre grunnleggende holdninger i idrettskonkurranser og drøfter hvorvidt man med inspirasjon fra sjenerøsitetsidealer og praktiske eksempler kan tenke seg en toppidrett som i større grad (...) bygger på sjenerøsitet. Artikkelen starter med en kort presentasjon av den norske idrettsmodellen og jeg skisserer deretter tre kriterier som alle idrettskonkurranser må oppfylle: 1) spille for å vinne, 2) klare regler som følges, og 3) respekt for konkurrenter. Deretter presenterer jeg egoisme, fairness og sjenerøsitet som tre mulige grunnholdninger, og de implikasjonene de har i en idrettslig sammenheng. Etter en gjennomgang av den grunnleggende egoismen i dagens toppidrett, som infiserer ikke bare utøveren, men også hele systemet rundt utøveren, diskuteres muligheten for å utvikle holdninger basert på sjenerøsitet. Det nevnes tre kilder til inspirasjon; engelsk overklassesport, Nietzsches tanker om den overlegne mester, og Arne Næss' sportspraksis og hans saklighetslære for gode diskusjoner. Deretter presenteres empiriske eksempler på sjenerøsitet og hva en spillteoretisk analyse av ulike holdninger gir som resultat. Jeg konkluderer med at en endring i retning av sjenerøsitet vil gi en rikere toppidrett og et bedre grunnlag for en helhetlig idrettsmodell.Nøkkelord: etikk, idrett, egoisme, rettferdighet, sjenerøsitetEnglish summary: From egoism to generosity – can elite sport be reformed?The Norwegian sport model can be visualized as a pyramid with mass sport at the base and elite sport at the top. This means that elite athletes become role models for children and young athletes. However, modern elite sport is increasingly characterized by egoistic attitudes where the goal is to acquire advantages that the other athletes do not have. The article discusses egoism, fairness and generosity as three fundamental attitudes in sporting competitions and discusses whether it is possible to develop an elite sport that is based on generosity to a greater extent than now. The article starts with a presentation of the Norwegian sport model and then sketches three criteria that every sporting competition must fulfill, 1) play to win, 2) clear rules that must be complied with, 3) respect for fellow competitors and opponents. Then there is a delineation of egoism, fairness and generosity as three possible attitudes and the implications they have in the context of sport. Egoism seems to be the basic attitude in elite sport today and it infuses not only the athletes but the whole system around them. The article then looks into the possibilities for generosity in elite sport and draws inspiration from three quite different sources; 1) British upper-class sport in the 19th century, 2) Nietzsche's views of the superior and brilliant masters, and 3) the philosopher Arne Næss' sport philosophy and his rules for good academic debates. This is followed by empirical examples of generosity and a game theoretical illustration of the consequences of egoism and generosity. The conclusion is that a change in the direction of generosity will lead to a richer and more meaningful elite sport and provide a better basis for an organic sport model. (shrink)

What is sportsmanship? Following Keating, we may say that sportsmanship is conduct befitting a person involved in sports. This raises the question of what kind of activity exactly sport is. This is notoriously difficult to answer, but roughly speaking, sport is a rule-governed activity that is about excellence, an understanding of how to play the game, and, in competitive sports, winning. Accordingly, there are four elements of sportsmanship: fairness, equity, good form and the will to win. These four elements are (...) equally important and not reducible to one another. Yet, the will to win is in systematic conflict with the other three elements. Hence, sportsmanship is not only compromised of these four elements, but also requires that a balance be held between them. (shrink)

A commonly accepted feature of commonsense morality is that there are some acts that are supererogatory or beyond the call of duty. Recently, philosophers have begun to ask whether something like supererogation might exist in other normative domains such as epistemology and esthetics. In this paper, I will argue that there is good reason to think that sporting supererogation exists. I will then argue that recognizing the existence of sporting supererogation is important because it highlights the value of sport as (...) a mutual pursuit of excellence and reinforces the value of sportsmanship. (shrink)

Traditionally, acts of sportsmanship have been upheld as worthy of praise. The purpose of this paper is to discern whether Bernard Suits’ Grasshopper -- in "The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia" -- would share this approval. The paper begins with a conceptual analysis of good sportspersonship. From this, four action categories are identified including good sportspersonship in the forms of game desertion, changing the game, not trying, and lusory self-handicapping. A strategy for evaluation is derived from the Grasshopper’s theory. Game-playing (...) is defined as action reflecting lusory attitude acknowledgement. Game-spoiling is introduced as action demonstrating lusory attitude abandonment. Three of the four actions categories are characterized as game-spoiling including good sportspersonship in the forms of game desertion, changing the game, and not trying. It is concluded that genuine good sportspersonship is characterized solely by altruistic forms of lusory self-handicapping. (shrink)

“What are you prepared to do to win?” This is a question that any serious competitor will at one time or another have to consider. The answer that one is inclined to make, I shall argue, is revealing of the deeper character of the individual participant in sport as both physical competitor and moral person. To that end, I examine one of the classic responses to the question, gamesmanship, which can be characterised as an attempt to win one game by (...) playing another. I contend that gamesmanship is a deliberate strategy of competition that has certain paradoxical outcomes; while it may produce an enhanced competitive environment that calls forth superior performances from participants, its more aggravated manifestations are in the long term athletically self-destructive for those who rely on them as a competitive device, and argue the presence of more profound underlying moral failings as well. (shrink)

ABSTRACT It is argued that sport, like science or medicine, is a valued human practice and is characterised as much by the moral manner in which its participants conduct themselves as by the pursuit of its own skills, standards and excellences. Virtues, such as justice, honesty and courage, are not only necessary to pursue its goals but to protect it from being corrupted by external interests. After explicating the practice view of sport in contrast to the sociological view, the nature (...) of competition in sport is discussed before examining two related issues: winning at all costs and the taking of performance-enhancing drugs. The importance of practices to education and the good life is also outlined. (shrink)

In recent years it has become increasingly the norm in football1 to kick the ball out of play when a player is, or appears to be, inadvertently injured. Kicking the ball out of play in football represents a particular instantiation of a generally understood fair play norm, the voluntary suspension of play (VSP). In the philosophical literature, support for the VSP norm is provided by John Russell (2007) who claims that his interpretivist account of sport is helpful for evaluating complex (...) moral issues in sport in general and issues related to injury in football in particular. This paper examines whether Russell's interpretivist-backed account of autonomy can adequately inform football players as to the nuanced and ambiguous moral considerations that arise in relation to the VSP norm. The paper goes on to identify the highly complex dynamic circumstances football players need to consider in order to better discharge their moral responsibilities when faced with inadvertent injuries. (shrink)

Mistaken judgments of fact by sporting officials – blown calls – are ubiquitous in sport and have altered the outcomes of games, championships, and even the record books. I argue that the effect these blown calls have on sports is deplorable, even unjust, and that given both the nature of sport in general and the social and economic importance of sports as they are played today, we ought to use technology to aid officials in making their judgments whenever doing so (...) would prove more effective than relying on unaided human perception. I then briefly address a number of objections to the increased use of technology in officiating. (shrink)

Pacing, a phenomenon whereby seasoned runners assist other runners toward pre-determined goal times in races of various lengths, is a common practice, yet it has received very little sustained philosophical scrutiny. This paper aims to take steps in that direction with a particular focus on pacing in amateur distance running. We begin with Peter Arnold’s analysis of the three views of sportsmanship – as a form of social union, as a means in the promotion of pleasure, and as a form (...) of altruism – to examine how well pacing fares in each. Additionally, we incorporate the concepts of the ‘dynamogenic agent’ from William James and the ‘intermediate man’ from John Lachs, which raise questions of autonomy, authenticity, and assistance. Furthermore, we provide descriptions of how the unique qualities of pace groups in running exemplify sportsmanship in ways that bolster Arnold’s analysis. While we write from an analytical position with regard to the topic, we also write from our own Emersonian ‘angle of vision’,.. (shrink)