Question Description
One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice One of the kinds of human enhancement that has received extensive philosophical attention in recent years is the use of biomedical interventions to improve the physical performance of athletes in the context of sports.One reason athletic performance enhancement garners so much attention is because of its currency, given the epidemic of "doping" scandals in contemporary sport.At first impression, the ethical problem with performance enhancement in sport would seem to be simply a problem of cheating. If the rules of sport forbid the use of performance enhancements, then their illicit use confers an advantage to users against other athletes. That advantage, in turn, can create pressure for more athletes to cheat in the same way, undermining the basis for the competitions at stake and exacerbating the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot.The rules of a game can be changed. In sports, novel forms of performance enhancing equipment and training are routinely introduced as athletic technology and expertise evolve. Where issues of athletes equitable access arise, they can be dealt with in one of two ways.Sometimes it is possible to ensure fair distribution, as for example, when the International Olympic Committee negotiated an agreement with the manufacturer of the new "FastSkin" swimming suit to provide suits to all the teams at the Sydney Olympics. In other cases, inequalities may simply come to be accepted as unfortunate but not unfair. This is, for example, how many people would view a story about an equatorial country that could not afford year-round artificial snow for its ski team, and so could not compete evenly with the ski teams of northern countries. If enhancement interventions can either be distributed fairly or the inequities they create can be written into the rules of the social game in question as part of the given advantages of the more fortunate, then individual users no longer face a fairness problem.For those who can afford it, for example, what would be ethically suspect about mounting a mirror image of the "Special Olympics" for athletes with disabilities: a "Super Olympics", featuring athletes universally equipped with the latest modifications and enhancements? For answers to that challenge, the critics of biomedical enhancement have to dig beyond concerns about the fair governance of games to a deeper and broader sense of "cheating", in terms of the corrosive effects of enhancement on the integrity of admirable human practices.Q. "Super Olympics", as per the passage:a)is a counter to Special Olympics.b)is a hypothetical event where athletes compete after having used biomedical enhancements.c)would be unfair.d)All of the above..Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.