



Instruments or authors?

On ya, Lance.

On ya, Lance.

After Lance Armstrong defiantly tweeted a picture of himself reclining on his couch under his seven Tour de France yellow jerseys on Tuesday, I got an email from a friend who wrote "this guy is operating on a different level" ...

What he meant is that, for people such as Armstrong, the end always justify the means, which is not so much a "different level" as a life philosophy my friend wants no part of.

"Do we really expect people, after a lifetime of systematic behaviour to be contrite and see the 'error' of their ways? He is lying there on his couch thinking, 'people don't understand. I won fair and square because EVERYONE was doping'."

What's more, perhaps Armstrong is right to feel like that?

There's plenty of different types of people in the world but I think we've all met two of the larger classes of humans: those for whom the end justifies the means and those for whom the end is only meaningful and moral if achieved in the "right" manner.

Of course, there are plenty of others who muddle through between these two schools of thought, switch back and forth, or are so hare-brained and befuddled they don't even realise they're making this choice.

Taken to its extreme, the former of those two expressions is embodied by the writings and thoughts of Niccolo Machiavelli - particularly his masterwork The Prince - in which he argues that pretty much any form of violence, deception, betrayal or manipulation can be justified if it allows a ruler to retain power.

I'm pretty sure Lance Armstrong would count himself a Machiavellian but, more to the point, so would many of our business, political, union and military leaders, not to mention advertisers, graziers, glaziers, geezers and freezer salesmen.

When pressed, many of these people would no doubt describe their moral attitude in utilitarian terms - that they believe in doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people - that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

And if you accept this philosophy, Armstrong may well be right in feeling justified in his actions. If we're to believe the revelations of the past few months, it seems more top riders were doping than not during the Armstrong era.

If so, it would have been impossible for him to compete, let alone dominate and win, if he didn't also dope. And without those wins, he would never have risen to prominence and inspired millions of cancer suffers to battle the disease.

Many military and political leaders adhere to the same philosophy - some people may die or suffer - but it'll save the lives or pain of many others.

It's how the US rationalised dropping atomic bombs on Japan, it's how pharmaceutical companies justify torturing animals to perfect medicines for humans.

In Armstrong's case, it's a backwards rationalisation because I doubt very much he was thinking about inspiring cancer patients when he first started juicing - he was thinking about getting rich and famous and being lauded as the best.

And let's not kid ourselves "he had no choice".

In his popular Harvard lecture series Justice, Michael Sandel, explaining the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, says that the "by any means necessary" school of thought reduces us to "instruments rather than authors of the purposes we pursue".

It is the capacity to make the choice between the means by which you achieve your end that "is what gives human life its special dignity. Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means, but as ends themselves".

"And this is why it's wrong to use people for other people's [or your own] well-being and happiness," says Sandel.

Armstrong abused his own body, then used his teammates, the media, his sponsors and then played bait and switch trying to tell us "the end" was to inspire millions of cancer sufferers and their families.

His tweet shows it was always about him and just how inverted his morality was and continues to be.




The point?






55 comments so far

  • *suspects Sam of beer doping in his meteoric rise to the top of the media heap*

    Some choices are so tempting and so easy as to not be choices. They can be so gradual and built in to the system that it may be years before we glance around and ask how we got here. Or it may never happen.

    We all seem to get these choices, and I'm pretty sure I stuffed up a few of my multiple choice exams. Luckily nobody was around to grade me. But maybe if I was Lance and had thousands of people grading my behaviour daily I'd end up not giving a crap either.

    Jakob Gamertsfelder
    Morgan SA
    Date and time
    November 15, 2012, 4:43PM
    • And thank you Sam for speaking about Shit Men Don't Say.

      I assume you'll be helping out by firmly grasping our manhoods and taking our, possibly excited, pulses.

      Cheers mate, thanks again.

      Jakob Gamertsfelder
      Morgan SA
      Date and time
      November 15, 2012, 5:07PM
      • Sports are weird like this. Drugs both legal and illegal are rampant in our society and are used for all sorts of reasons.

        Students have trouble with ADD fetch them a pill to concentrate, PHD students use many drugs to burn the midnight hour, musicians, writers and artists do their best work on the gear and are celebrated.

        Furthermore in terms of cheating business people routinely cheat taxes and receive kickbags or undertake highly dubious practices to secure resources. Politicians lie and send are troops to dubious wars and condemn people for career and power gains.

        This is par for the course. Yet an athlete takes drugs and the world spins off its axis due to the hysteria.

        Part of this is we expect a lot from sports people and attach values to sport that we don't to other fields of endeavour. Why is honour, integrity, purity, faster higher stronger fair play given such prominence in sport yet seemingly overlooked in other fields?

        Athletes are human like any other. The motivations for cheating are obvious. Money and fame. A hell of a lot of people break rules to get this. I'm not surprised by the level of Armstrong's cheating at all. Money, fame and fortune vs been unemployed (due to lack of other skills) and on the bread line?

        Understand I am not condoning Armstrong's cheating at all. Like Sam says he had a choice. He could choose not to compete. Just the hysteria seems odd.

        I believe the disappoint lies with a bit of projection. People saw the Armstrong story of fighting cancer etc as heroic and thus ascribed characteristics to the man. Characteristics he no doubt exploited for commercial gain but characteristics that were never there.

        Date and time
        November 15, 2012, 5:10PM
        • Before the Lance Armstrong thing, I used to think "who gives a toss whether these sports people want to abuse their bodies by going on the gear?" But more recently, I have come to see it not just as cheating, but as fraud. Lance's fraud allowed him to become very wealthy and influential - no better than Bernie Madoff.

          Sure, he set up a cancer charity - but as much as anything, this gave him a valid platform to spruik brand lance. I do not buy the argument that his setting up a charity somehow absolves or mitigates his fraud.

          Date and time
          November 20, 2012, 8:07AM
      • Some people will do anything when it comes to money, you have to wonder how much of Armstrong's charity donations end up in 'admin fees'.

        Funny advertisement, think I'll go get a prostate check before Christmas.

        kermit the log
        Date and time
        November 15, 2012, 6:39PM
        • Quite a lot, most of it went on entertainment and travel amongst other things dressed up as "raising awareness". There is a link to US government flilings of charity organisations expenditure (from memory through NYvelocity or possibly cyclismas or innerring) showing how the charity dollar is spent. And contrary to common mythology surrounding Livestrong, none was spent on research for years. That which was used for "cancer" purposes is used for "awareness raising" not research or treatment.

          Date and time
          November 16, 2012, 6:26AM
      • In light of a recent South Park episode, this made me chuckle. People inspired by Jesus but are now disillusioned to find out Jesus was on steroids.

        So what? Armstrong still won. That's all that matters. Even if he was doped up along with everyone else he beat them all. Second place is just the first loser. You can take the high road all you want but it won't lead you anywhere when everyone else is taking the low road and beat you to the destination. I'd rather win than be "right" or "good". Sandel’s analysis smacks of the "it's ok if you try everyone gets a medal anyway" drivel. Only winners deserve medals. The Prince was one of the greatest self-help books ever written. It should be taught in schools.

        Bet you can't name the man who won who wasn't on drugs without the use of Google or a recent news article. Bet he never went on to fame and fortune. History only remembers and rewards the winners.

        Date and time
        November 15, 2012, 7:30PM
        • What if, instead of doping, Lance poisoned the other competitors so they couldn't ride as fast? There are rules for a reason, and if someone breaks the rules they automatically forfeit any chance of being a 'winner'.

          Date and time
          November 16, 2012, 5:22AM
        • "Second place is just the first loser".

          Did you steal that from a bumper sticker? What a world view to have. So you don't think that being "one of the best in the world" at something is worthwhile, only "the best"? And what happens when someone younger/better comes along, does that devalue your achievement?

          I presume you're a fan of Ben Johnson, Flo Jo, and other "winners" whom history has rewarded and remembered?

          Cumberland Oval
          Date and time
          November 16, 2012, 6:13AM
        • Cadel Evans and also probably Bradley Wiggins.

          slim jim
          Date and time
          November 16, 2012, 6:23AM

      More comments

      Make a comment

      You are logged in as [Logout]

      All information entered below may be published.

      Error: Please enter your screen name.

      Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

      Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

      Error: Please enter your comment.

      Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

      Post to

      You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

      Thank you

      Your comment has been submitted for approval.


      Featured advertisers
      Executive Style newsletter signup


      Sign up now