has anyone ever felt shame in the absence of a negative social opinion about what it is they felt shame for? if the negative opinion of others (in this case, the general public) is not the reason a player would be ashamed of taking steroids, what is? please provide one example where someone felt shame about something that was not frowned upon, if negative public opinion is not implied at least implicitly.
am i not asking? i just haven’t yet received an answer i find satisfactory. the sentiment that steroids should be banned as “unfair”, regardless of the health concerns involved, has been expressed in this very thread.
and i’ll continue to believe that steroids should be legal for the same reason i believe all harmful drugs should be: a person should be able to harm himself if that is his wish.
do you mean to imply that steroids and “performance-enhancing drugs” are harmful by definition?
i’ve argued that “performance enhancing drugs” should not be illegal, so of course that is part of the hypothetical. as an example of the sentiment i wish to dispel, i give you the young girl who lost a medal in the olympics a few years ago because she was found to have pseudoephedrine in her system. she was given the decongestant because of a cold she had. it was certainly not harmful to her. i can see amateur sports wishing to ban substances that are harmful, to protect the children involved, but then should they not ban the substance only when it is present in harmful amounts? i don’t argue that she shouldn’t have lost her medal; she broke the rules. but i will argue that the rule was without merit.
again, i won’t argue that jason giambi wasn’t irresponsible. he cheated. he broke the rules. i don’t agree that steroids should be illegal, as i think people should be able to harm themselves if that is there desire.
however, this word “unfair” keeps popping up. would the advantage gained by the use of steroids be “unfair” if they weren’t banned substances?
I myself have felt ashamed about something I had done that nobody was aware of, nor was there any chance someone would find out.
I’m not sure where you’re going here. There is a general public sentiment that can crystallize around certain activities. Stealing is bad. It’s wrong to take advantage of someone weaker. Whatever. These opinions form because those activities (at least insofar as this “majority” is concerned) are bad, evil (pick your own adjective). People avoid these activities if they are morally advanced because they agree it would be wrong. Less-advanced people avoid them because they fear society’s reaction (I believe this is the type you’re pointing out). But in either instance, the act isn’t “wrong” because the public disapproves. The public disapproves because the act is wrong. And anyone who falsely denies having done such an act is to some extent reinforcing the public perception of the nature of the activity.
So, your hypotheticals are a little silly. They amount to, “Well, what if the public didn’t consider these acts wrong, what if we stripped these acts of anything that could be considered wrong–would they still be considered wrong?” Uh, no.
not exactly. i’m saying that the only reason one denies doing something is because that something is considered wrong by whomever the act was denied to. the person himself might not have considered it wrong, therefore, denial is not a valid basis for considering something wholly wrong.
is homosexuality “wrong” in your mind? the majority of people in this country believe it is, and people will deny their homosexuality until they no longer feel vulnerable to society’s opinion because of that. so, denying steroid use doesn’t make it wrong (as you pointed out), nor is it even an indication that it is wrong; it is an indication that someone would be looked down upon for doing it.