Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  moralny relatywizm
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
PL
The paper presents a causal model of a utopian vision of sport which explains – in regressive model, i.e. going back to the original, metaphysical premises – key reasons (X) of its fulfillment. The recent cases of breaking the rule of ontological equality by sprinters or swimmers, which violates the standard of decency in personal life, show how easy it is to produce a state of dystopia. The regression model applied here demonstrates that the referee elders determine the success of sports utopia as a variant of social utopia. They are capable of authoritatively managing the good of sports family. There must be a reason why sports community is called a family. Is it not a utopian task to persevere in family relationships, which are somehow difficult but ultimately feasible. Although children are the future and hope of the family, which also regards a “sports family”, it is not the children but its adult members, able to take responsibility for the common good, who keep order in the family and give sense to all its actions. Similarly, a good execution of competition within a sports family which is aimed at reaching the fulfillment of the family’s ideal, is possible only if the following referees are employed to supervise its execution: a) category referees – responsible for equal gender and somatic shares, b) classification referees – responsible for ontological equality of male and female ascetics attending the gymnasium, c) referee debunkers – indicate ontological inequality of dopers, d) referee moderators – responsible for moral equality of male and female competitors. If it was not for the referee elders who force authoritatively athletes to march in formation of moral and ontological equality, in no way diminishing the role of athletes themselves in creating a fair competition, it can be assumed that athlete with their spirit of freedom, relativism, individuality and egoism would not be up to this humanistic task.
2
100%
EN
Background. Relevance of the research. This paper attempts to consider fairness in athletes in the context of the philosophy of sport. It is a non-empirical study in which a causal model of the pursuance of sporting utopia is discussed. Recent cases where the ontic order of sport has been broken by sprinters and swimmers, and the current case of Russian athletes (who have violated the rules of proper conduct in their personal lives), show how easily the state of a sports anti-utopia can be reached. The aim of the study is to explain the key rationis sufficientis and causa to achieve a sports utopia. Research methods and organization. By using regressive deduction, reaching back to primary metaphysical premises, it explains the key reasons for achieving a sports utopia. Results and discussion. The applied regressive reasoning model reveals that the success of a sports utopia as a variety of social utopia, is determined by authoritative judges managing the common good of the sports family. There is a reason why the sporting community is referred to as the sports family. Maintaining familial relationships is, in itself a utopia, i.e. a daunting but feasible task. And although the hopes of every family, as with the “sports family”, are its children, only the adult family members – capable of assuming responsibility for the common good – can maintain order in the family and render all its activities sensible. Similarly, the successful organization of competitions in the sports family, aiming at perfection according to the family’s ideals, is only possible if competitive order is preserved by: a) judge-categorizers responsible for maintaining sexual-somatic equality; b) judge-classifiers responsible for ontic equality (extra-sexual physicality) of the gymnasium (gym) ascetics; c) judge-exposers responsible for revealing the ontic inequalities of doping abusers; and d) judge- moderators responsible for ensuring moral equality between competitors. In the discussed causal model I did not initially identify that a “new child” had entered the sports social system – a child born into a world of liberal usurpation, with whom the establishment of a familial relationship regarding freedom, morality, ideals and authority would be very difficult. I had not thought about this which it appears is key to understanding the cause of the failure of sports competition in humanistic terms, i.e. the cause of the deconstruction of the sports utopia. Conclusion. If it had not been for these judges’ authoritative enforcement of moral and ontic equality among athletes, (without diminishing athletes’ contributions to the creation of fair competition) it could be assumed that liberally, relativistically and individualistically disposed athletes would not have been able to tackle their humanistic tasks by themselves.
PL
W eseju przedstawiam model przyczynowy zajścia ku utopii sportowej, tłumacząc – w rozumowaniu regresywnym, idącym wstecz, ku najpierwszym, metafizycznym przesłankom – kluczowe racje (X) jej spełniania. Ostatnie przypadki łamania porządku równości ontycznej przez sprinterów, czy pływaków – naruszających normę dobrego obyczaju w życiu osobistym, pokazują, jak łatwo można wytworzyć stan antyutopii. Zastosowany model rozumowania regresywnego pokazuje, że o pomyślności utopii sportowej, jako odmianie utopii społecznej, decyduje starszyzna sędziowska, zdolna do autorytatywnego zarządzania dobrem sportowej rodziny. Jest jakaś racja w tym, że społeczność sportową nazywa się rodziną. Czy trwanie w relacjach rodzinnych nie jest zadaniem utopijnym, a więc poniekąd trudnym, a jednak ostatecznie wykonalnym. I choć nadzieją rodziny są dzieci, także „rodziny sportowej”, to nie one, tylko dorośli jej członkowie – zdolni do przyjęcia odpowiedzialności za dobro wspólne – strzegą w niej ładu oraz nadają wszystkim poczynaniom sens. Podobnie, pomyślne przeprowadzanie konkursów w rodzinie sportowej, idące ku spełnieniu się w jej ideale, jest o tyle możliwe, o ile porządku doglądają w niej: a) sędziowie kategoryzatorzy – odpowiedzialni za stan równości płciowo-somatycznej, b) sędziowie-klasyfikatorzy – odpowiedzialni za stan równości ontycznej (poza-płciowej cielesności) ascetek i ascetów gimnazjonu, c) sędziowie-demaskatorzy – ukazujący nierówności ontyczne dopingowych oszustów oraz d) sędziowie-moderatorzy – odpowiedzialni za stan równości moralnej konkurentek i konkurentów. Gdyby nie udział starszyzny sędziowskiej w autorytatywnym wymuszaniu na sportowcach paradowania w szyku równości moralnej oraz równości ontycznej, to nie ujmując samym sportowcom udziału w podmiotowym tworzeniu konkursu sprawiedliwych można przypuszczać, że wolnościowo, relatywistycznie, indywidualistycznie i egoistycznie usposobieni sportowcy nie podołaliby sami humanistycznemu zadaniu.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.