ABSTRACT

This paper first considers and rebuts George Orwell's case against international sport. He argues both from general principles and specific examples that international sporting contests lead to orgies of nationalism and exacerbate animosities between nations. In response I argue that his examples are cherry-picked, pathological cases. I then consider the argument of Gleaves and Llewellyn, which objects to international sport on a) ethical and b) lusory grounds. Drawing on the work of Iorwerth and Hardman I claim that the ethical problems are not intrinsic to international sport and can be avoided or mitigated; while their lusory argument relies on a single-value definition of elite sport that can be contested. I conclude that neither Orwell nor Gleaves and Llewellyn make a successful case against international sport and that it provides goods that they do not acknowledge.

摘要

本文首先考虑并反驳了乔治·奥威尔关于国际体育的案例。他从一般原则和具体示例中都争辩说，国际体育竞赛会导致民族主义的狂欢，并加剧国家之间的敌意。作为回应，我认为他的例子是精心挑选的病态案例。然后，我考虑格里夫斯（Gleaves）和利韦林（Llewellyn）的论点，该论点基于a）道德和b）理性的理由反对国际体育。我主张借鉴Iorwerth和Hardman的工作，认为道德问题不是国际体育的内在问题，可以避免或减轻。而他们的lusory论点依赖于可以抗衡的精英运动的单值定义。