The background work now done, it is possible to engage the dilemma by applying the criteria of judgement to the various available options. Which aims are best served by which responses to the problem?

These, remember, are some of the possible responses to the problem, “What should we do about the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes?”:

• Legalise performance-enhancing drugs for all athletes.
• Increase out-of-competition testing of competitors.
• Increase the punishments for athletes caught cheating.
• Campaign against the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
• Ban sports in which drug-taking is a problem.

Some of the criteria that we might use to choose between these options are:

• Promoting fair competition.
• Improving the sport as a spectacle.
• Protecting the health of the athletes.

Which of the criteria we adopt will affect which of the possible responses to the problem we will ultimately endorse.

If our aim were to promote fair competition, then we might decide that it is best if all atheletes use performance-enhancing drugs; that way, all athletes would be able to benefit from the drugs equally, levelling the playing field.

If, on the other hand, we cared most about the health of the athletes, then we would probably look for a solution that minimises drug-use. If it were judged that it is impossible to detect all drug-use, and so that continued competition would inevitably involve some atheletes trying to cheat by taking drugs, then we might even decide to suspend all competition, banning the affected sports in order to protect the athletes that might compete in them.

In practice, we often use several criteria of choice simultaneously, perhaps prioritising some over others.