Revised paragraph

The rhetoric surrounding the idea of a person’s capability can take many forms, and is achieved in a variety of ways. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the university of Oxford, and Rebecca Roache, a lecturer on philosophy at Royal Holloway, have written an essay1 in a book where, while claiming to take a neutral stance, provide some interesting arguments about enhancements in general. A few things to know is that for this particular example they are talking about enhancement via drugs, which is possible for people to do now, although some do argue that long term testing for side effects is needed.2 The main way Bostrom and Roache are getting their point across is by providing real world  examples about part they are arguing for, in this case that it is potentially okay for drug enhancers to be used in sport. For example, they explain how if the drugs were legal that it would not create an uneven playing field. They even look back at the original reasons that sports exist to provide support that drug enhancement wouldn’t ruin the spirit of the sport.1

There are some philosophers out there that comment that the use of enhancing drugs in sports can be considered ethical. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the university of Oxford, and Rebecca Roache, a lecturer on philosophy at Royal Holloway, have written an essay, "Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement, which was published in a book, New Waves in Applied Ethics, a section of which contains commentary on the ethics behind using drugs in sports. Their primarily logos based arguments are focused ideas that the enhancing drugs do not necessarily create unequal fields. On page nine, they comment that "For example, permitting the use of a drug that enabled all competitors to improve their performance ... —would not—if all competitors used such a drug—change the fact that men can generally lift heavier weights than women[,] ... [and it would,] by itself[, not] enable the second-best competitors to beat the best competitors." Their main purpose behind this section is to convince their audience that taking drugs need not be an open and shut case. They are encouraging their readers and those interested in debating ethics to ponder the case, as well as to come to their own opinion on it.


Notes:

One of the biggest edits here, which greatly improved clarity and coherence, was trimming off the fat, i.e. unneeded sentences that cluttered up the paragraph. Also, by restructuring so that the focus is on the two philosophers I was able to narrow down the paragraph to focus on the topic. Also, a better analyzation on the rhetoric behind their arguments aids the paragraphs coherence to the QRG as a whole.