Paul Gaffney has provided an excellent exploration of teamwork in athletic contexts, a topic that in spite of its prominence and relevance in the sporting world has been relatively neglected in the philosophy of sport literature. In this paper, I present and discuss three areas of Gaffney’s exploration of teamwork relevant to organized youth sport that might help stimulate reflection on the most auspicious conditions and responsible methodologies for young athletes to become themselves through organized sport.

Elite athletes are characterized by their high level of performance in sport. Since the very beginnings of sport, it has been understood that physical and physiological abilities influence the performance of athletes. Advances in scientific knowledge, especially sport psychology and neuroscience, seem to confirm this intuition and consequently it is possible to characterize elite athletes as having an extraordinary combination of physical and mental abilities. Techniques and substances that contribute to enhancing physical characteristics of athletes have also been well known (...) for ages. But it is now possible to make use of other techniques and substances that not only enhance physical abilities but also cognitive capabilities, which seem to require greater consideration given their direct impact on the athlete’s brain. In this article, we examine two such techniques, cognitive enhancers and transcranial stimulators, and highlight the potential advantages and drawbacks that applying each one may have on sport. Given the relative novelty of these enhancement techniques and substances and the absence of conclusive evidence regarding their short- and long-term effects, we deem that their use ought to be strictly governed by cautionary principles. But due to that same lack of evidence, we believe that the possibility of examining the feasibility of applying these techniques to sport should not be denied. (shrink)

One often chooses to work collaboratively. Given that there is a cost in effort of doing so, it suggests that there also has to be some real advantage in teamwork. The idea that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts is applied to teams in terms of the non-linear composition of causes. One can thus do things together that one could not do alone or one can do them better. This supports Gaffney’s communitarian approach thereby explaining (...) how the individual can be at their best when part of a collective and indeed how a collective endeavor can be the making of the individual self. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to develop a philosophical framework for what I argue are the Nietzschean and Kantian aspects of professional boxing matches: narrative dissimulation and moral obligation. The overarching objective of the analysis is to shed a critical light on brief intervals of boxing competitions (the minute between rounds) that are crucial but often overlooked in the philosophical literature devoted to boxing and, indeed, combat sport more generally. Additionally, in characterizing more fully the philosophical complexities of cornerman and boxer (...) interactions in the flow of such a violent and dangerous sport, the analysis aims to make explicit some of what is unique—and uniquely problematic—to competing in and coaching professional pugilism and, by extension, other combat sports, such as mixed martial arts (MMA) and Muay Thai. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to develop a philosophical framework for what I argue are the Nietzschean and Kantian aspects of professional boxing matches: narrative dissimulation and moral obligation. The overarching objective of the analysis is to shed a critical light on brief intervals of boxing competitions (the minute between rounds) that are crucial but often overlooked in the philosophical literature devoted to boxing and, indeed, combat sport more generally. Additionally, in characterizing more fully the philosophical complexities of cornerman and boxer (...) interactions in the flow of such a violent and dangerous sport, the analysis aims to make explicit some of what is unique—and uniquely problematic—to competing in and coaching professional pugilism and, by extension, other combat sports, such as mixed martial arts (MMA) and Muay Thai. (shrink)

In this essay I endorse Gaffney’s paradoxical analysis that supports the right over the good, ‘horizontal commitments’ to teammates over ‘vertical loyalties’ to the cause of winning. However, I attempt to present two friendly amendments—by adding a second factor to the vertical element and by showing that a virtue ethics approach is needed in certain situations. I conclude that Gaffney’s deontological stance serves him well in the Hope Solo case, but might not be as effective in other circumstances.

In this reply to Paul Gaffney, I raise questions about his strong emphasis on winning as the foundation of athletic virtues such as teamwork. I connect this to his reading of Aristotle on the connection of virtue and happiness, and suggest an alternative reading that I believe is more true to Aristotle and to the experience of sport.

Teamwork in sport presents a variety of special challenges and satisfactions. It requires an integration of talents and contributions from individual team members, which is a practical achievement, and it represents a shared pursuit, which is a moral achievement. In its best instances team sport allows members to transform individual interests into a common interest, and in the process discover of part of their own identities. Teamwork is made intelligible by the collective pursuit of victory, but moral requirements importantly condition (...) that activity. To some extent, the dynamic of team sport instantiates a basic experience of human sociality. (shrink)

Among philosophers, the question about strategic fouls has been whether they are ethically justified in light of our best conception of sport. This paper proposes a different defense. I argue that many strategic fouls should be excused even if we regard them as unjustified. I first lay out a partial defense of the assumptions that playing to win cannot be subordinate to playing skillfully and that winning has value that cannot be accounted for in terms of the skill that produces (...) it. I then argue that the logic of competitive play structures practical reason such that it is unreasonable to require even an ethical competitor always to subordinate the aim of winning to ethical standards within the game. Some ethical failures should be excused. The argument implies limits on the excusing conditions. I discuss these limits in some detail, showing that they fit patterns in the common acceptance of strategic fouls. I then address possible objections. In conclusion I argue that the logic of excuse rather than justification explains a common reaction to strategic fouls, resolving what might otherwise appear to be a contradiction in that reaction. (shrink)