Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett

Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Michael John McNamee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this essay, we respond to Angelo Corlett’s criticism of our paper ‘Ethics, Brain Injuries, and Sports: Prohibition, Reform, and Prudence’. To do so, first, we revisit certain assumptions and arguments Corlett makes concerning intercollegiate football and brain injuries in his 2014 paper ‘Should intercollegiate football be eliminated?’. Second, we identify and criticize two key elements in his response regarding (a) ‘luck egalitarianism’, and (b) ‘public goods’. We conclude by reaffirming our critical reading of Corlett’s original 2014 paper and by identifying further elements (i) luck and the nature of individual responsibility; and (ii) the nature of sports as public rather than merely private goods, that he would have to address for his latter 2018 position to hold true.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSport, Ethics and Philosophy
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Football
Brain Injuries
Sports
Brain
Response Elements
Ethics
Reading
Brain Injury
Social Good
Luck
Luck Egalitarianism
Prohibition
Prudence
Responsibility
Criticism

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Philosophy

Cite this

@article{f954b29cabca4e83909ab6feefc90970,
title = "Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett",
abstract = "In this essay, we respond to Angelo Corlett’s criticism of our paper ‘Ethics, Brain Injuries, and Sports: Prohibition, Reform, and Prudence’. To do so, first, we revisit certain assumptions and arguments Corlett makes concerning intercollegiate football and brain injuries in his 2014 paper ‘Should intercollegiate football be eliminated?’. Second, we identify and criticize two key elements in his response regarding (a) ‘luck egalitarianism’, and (b) ‘public goods’. We conclude by reaffirming our critical reading of Corlett’s original 2014 paper and by identifying further elements (i) luck and the nature of individual responsibility; and (ii) the nature of sports as public rather than merely private goods, that he would have to address for his latter 2018 position to hold true.",
author = "{Lopez Frias}, {Francisco Javier} and McNamee, {Michael John}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/17511321.2019.1583273",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Sport, Ethics and Philosophy",
issn = "1751-1321",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett. / Lopez Frias, Francisco Javier; McNamee, Michael John.

In: Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brain-Injured Footballers, Voluntary Choice and Social Goods. A Reply to Corlett

AU - Lopez Frias, Francisco Javier

AU - McNamee, Michael John

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - In this essay, we respond to Angelo Corlett’s criticism of our paper ‘Ethics, Brain Injuries, and Sports: Prohibition, Reform, and Prudence’. To do so, first, we revisit certain assumptions and arguments Corlett makes concerning intercollegiate football and brain injuries in his 2014 paper ‘Should intercollegiate football be eliminated?’. Second, we identify and criticize two key elements in his response regarding (a) ‘luck egalitarianism’, and (b) ‘public goods’. We conclude by reaffirming our critical reading of Corlett’s original 2014 paper and by identifying further elements (i) luck and the nature of individual responsibility; and (ii) the nature of sports as public rather than merely private goods, that he would have to address for his latter 2018 position to hold true.

AB - In this essay, we respond to Angelo Corlett’s criticism of our paper ‘Ethics, Brain Injuries, and Sports: Prohibition, Reform, and Prudence’. To do so, first, we revisit certain assumptions and arguments Corlett makes concerning intercollegiate football and brain injuries in his 2014 paper ‘Should intercollegiate football be eliminated?’. Second, we identify and criticize two key elements in his response regarding (a) ‘luck egalitarianism’, and (b) ‘public goods’. We conclude by reaffirming our critical reading of Corlett’s original 2014 paper and by identifying further elements (i) luck and the nature of individual responsibility; and (ii) the nature of sports as public rather than merely private goods, that he would have to address for his latter 2018 position to hold true.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062796095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062796095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17511321.2019.1583273

DO - 10.1080/17511321.2019.1583273

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85062796095

JO - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy

JF - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy

SN - 1751-1321

ER -