20 episodes

Each episode focuses on ideas drawn from the philosophy of sport. The podcast seeks to be a resource for students and scholars, to highlight and examine themes in the philosophy of sport, and to spur new thought and research in the field.

Examined Sport The Sports Ethicist

    • Science
    • 5.0 • 3 Ratings

Each episode focuses on ideas drawn from the philosophy of sport. The podcast seeks to be a resource for students and scholars, to highlight and examine themes in the philosophy of sport, and to spur new thought and research in the field.

    Randolph Feezell, "Sportsmanship and Blowouts"

    Randolph Feezell, "Sportsmanship and Blowouts"

     
    In this episode of Examined Sport, I look at Randolph Feezell’s “Sportsmanship and Blowouts: Baseball and Beyond.” Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, Feezell responds to Nicholas Dixon’s paper on blowouts (https://www.blubrry.com/sports_ethics_show/36255363/nicholas-dixon-on-sportsmanship-and-running-up-the-score/) that was the subject of a previous episode of Examined Sport. Feezell proposes what he calls the Revised Anti-Blowout thesis to better explain the ethics of blowouts.
     
     

    Nicholas Dixon, "On Sportsmanship and Running Up The Score"

    Nicholas Dixon, "On Sportsmanship and Running Up The Score"

    Published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1992, Nicholas Dixon’s paper: “On Sportsmanship and Running up the Score” spurred a discussion on the ethics of wide-margin victories in sport. Dixon argues against what he calls the Anti-Blowout Thesis. Blowouts are not, on his view, always or necessarily unsporting.

    Kathleen Pearson, "Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics"

    Kathleen Pearson, "Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics"

    Kathleen Pearson’s “Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics,” was published in Quest in 1973 and it analyzes the ethical status of deception in sport and athletics. This short and exceptionally clear paper has influenced later work regarding deception and fouls in sport.

    J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 2

    J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 2

    J.S Russell's “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?”, published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, presents a theory of sport adjudication that Russell argues better explains sport, the role of officials and umpires, and guides those officials in officiating their sports. Russell’s paper is one of the first explicit attempts to explain and apply interpretivism, one of the central philosophical accounts of sport. This is part two of two episodes on Russell's paper.

    J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 1

    J. S. Russell, “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?” Part 1

    J.S Russell's “Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?”, published in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in 1999, presents a theory of sport adjudication that Russell argues better explains sport, the role of officials and umpires, and guides those officials in officiating their sports. Russell’s paper is one of the first explicit attempts to explain and apply interpretivism, one of the central philosophical accounts of sport. This is part one of two episodes on Russell's paper.
     

    Peter Arnold, "Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship"

    Peter Arnold, "Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship"

    Peter Arnold's 1984 article "Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship" looks at sportsmanship as a social union, as the promotion of pleasure, and as a form of altruism. Arnold also criticizes James Keating's view of sportsmanship that was discussed in a previous episode.

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5
3 Ratings

3 Ratings

Top Podcasts In Science


Listeners Also Subscribed To