Several authors, such as William J. Morgan, John S. Russell and R. Scott Kretchmar, have claimed that the limits between the diverse normative theories of sport need to be revisited. Most of these works are philosophically grounded in Anglo-American philosophical approaches. For instance, William J. Morgans proposal is mainly based on Richard Rortys philosophy. But he also discusses with some European philosophers like Jürgen Habermas. However, Habermas central ideas are rejected by Morgan. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Morgans rejection of Habermas thought and show that a more appropriate normative of sport that explains better our current sporting world can be achieved by drawing on the German philosophers ideas. The plan of this paper is the following. It shall analyse the limits of the distinction between broad internalism and externalism by taking Morgans work as its starting point. To do so, firstly, the conventionalist way in which Morgan criticises the limits of interpretivism shall be explained (§2). Secondly, the relationship between Morgans proposals and the hermeneutical theories which are at the roots of his proposal shall be brought to light. Thirdly, since Morgan takes Habermas hermeneutical ethics to be an example of externalism, the relationship between his theory and Habermas ethical account shall be clearly defined. Moreover, Morgans proposal shall be criticised in the light of Habermas discourse ethics (§3). To conclude, a Habermasian approach in sport ethics shall be described (§4).
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation