DOCSLIB.ORG

By Beth Seacord

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
By Beth Seacord UNTO THE LEAST OF THESE: ANIMAL SUFFERING AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL by Beth Seacord B.A. University of Southern California, 1998 M.A. Biola University, Talbot School of Theology, 2004 M.A. University of Colorado, Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado, Boulder in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy 2013 This Thesis entitled: UNTO THE LEAST OF THESE: ANIMAL SUFFERING AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL written by Beth Seacord has been approved for the Department of Philosophy _______________________________________ (Wes Morriston) ________________________________________________________________________ (Paul Draper, Christopher Heathwood, Claudia Mills, Michael Tooley) Date_____________________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the discipline of philosophy. Seacord, Beth (Ph.D., Philosophy) Unto the Least of These: Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil Thesis directed by Professor Wes Morriston Abstract: In this dissertation I argue that animal pain and suffering pose a greater problem for God’s goodness than has been generally acknowledged in the history of the discussion of the problem of evil. I take David Hume’s abductive approach to the problem of evil as my model and compare two explanations for the evidence of animal suffering—the hypothesis of indifference and classical theism. I argue that theism is a poor fit with the total evidence—evidence that includes animal suffering. I argue that there are certain features of the world that are surprising on the hypothesis that a perfectly good, all-powerful being governs the universe. Among these features are the pain and suffering of sentient animals, the phenomena of predation, and the mechanism of evolution by natural selection. Given that there is an alternate hypothesis that is a better fit with the data, it is unreasonable to accept theism. Then I evaluate some of the best attempts to diffuse the problem of animal suffering—I survey various theodicies and defenses designed to raise the probability of theism on the evidence of animal suffering including Peter van Inwagen’s modal and moral skeptical defense, Michael Murray’s neo-Carteisian defense and evolutionary goods defense and Richard Swinburne’s animal virtue theodicy. I conclude that each of the theodicies and defenses are highly implausible and, therefore, fail to raise the probability of theism relative to the evidence. I conclude that the prospects for theodicies and defenses are dim. Unless the theist has recourse to some very strong argument for the existence of an all-good God, I argue that it unreasonable to believe in the God of classical theism. iii To Scout and Spike Contents I. Chapter One: An Introduction to the Problem of Animal Suffering…………………………………………………………………..1 1. Dissertation Outline……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….…..13 2. Situation My Project: Some Important Distinctions………………………………………………………………….…………....16 i. Logical and Evidential Arguments from Evil……………………………………………………………………………….17 ii. The Local and Global Problems of Evil……………………………………………………………………………………….19 iii. Moral and Natural Evil……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 iv. Pain and Suffering……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 v. The Relative Moral Worth of Human and Animal Suffering……………………………………………………….29 vi. Theodicies and Defenses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 II. Chapter Two: Evolution and the Problem of Predation………………………………………………………………………………….34 i. Evolution—A Quick Definition…………………………………………………………………………………………………..35 1. Creation by Evolution………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36 i. The Objection from the Inherent Goodness of Evolutionary Progress………………………………….......44 ii. The Objection from the Value of Wild, Natural Systems……………………………………………………….…..49 iii. Peter Van Inwagen’s Objection from Moral and Modal Skepticism…………………………………….…….60 iv. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...68 III. Chapter Three: The Neo-Cartesians………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..70 1. The No-Self View………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………72 2. Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: The HOT and DHOT Views…………………………………………..….79 i. Motivating the Plausibility of Non-Conscious Experience……………………………………………….....84 ii. Phenomenal Consciousness on the Higher-Order Thought (HOT) Theory…………………….......87 iii. Animal Concepts…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….90 iv. The Mindreading Faculty……………………………………………………………………………………………………94 v. Phenomenal Consciousness on the Dispositional Higher-Order Thought Theory……………………………………………………………………………………….…102 vi. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……109 3. Michael Murray’s Neo-Cartesian Defense…………………………………………………………………………………..…110 i. The Standard Argument from Analogy for Animal Pain……………………………………………………111 ii. Strengthening the Argument from Analogy……………………………………………………………..………119 iii. Murray’s Four Neo-Cartesian Proposals………………………………………………………………………..…125 4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..133 IV: Chapter Four: Animal Pain and the Regularity of Nature……………………………………………………………………….…..135 1. The Intrinsic and Instrumental Goods of a Regular World………………………………………………………..……136 i. The Good of Human Moral Freedom……………………………………………………………………………….136 ii. The Good of Scientific Discovery………………………………………………………………………………….….141 iii. The Nature of God Revealed…………………………………………………………………………..…………..…..143 iv. The Good of Divine Hiddenness……………………………………………………………………..……………….148 v. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..151 2. Is Pain Necessary for Embodied Existence?.......................................................................................151 3. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…162 v. V: Chapter Five: Animal Suffering and Animal Virtue………………………………………………………………………………………163 1. Richard Swinburne’s Animal Virtue Theodicy……………………………………………………………………………..….164 i. Empirical Evidence for Moral Behavior in Animals………………………………………………….………..166 ii. Evaluating Swinburne’s Animal Virtue Theodicy………………………………………………….……………171 iii. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….177 VI: Chapter Six: The Argument from Animal Suffering and the Objection from Skeptical Theism…………….….…179 i. An Introduction to Skeptical Theism…………………………………………………………………………………179 1. Skeptical Theism and the Hume-Style Argument from Evil…………………………………………………………………….185 i. Michael Bergmann’s Objection to the Hume-Style Argument from Evil……………………………189 ii. Peter van Inwagen’s Objection to the Hume-style Argument from Evil………………….…………186 iii. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….195 VII: Chapter Seven: Concluding Thoughts………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….….197 1. Animals and the Afterlife………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….197 2. Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………………………………………….………………….……………..203 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….……….205 vi. Chapter One: An Introduction to the Problem of Animal Suffering The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm in all my holy mountain,’ says the Lord.1 There is no greater challenge to the goodness of God than the suffering of the innocent. Such suffering represents a deep affront to our moral sensibilities, and tempts even the most faithful to shake their fist at the universe and cry foul. Job, the archetypal sufferer, observes that God is ultimately responsible for the suffering of his creatures: “‘if it is not he, then who is it?’”2 After all, Job reasons, if God is sovereign, then both good and evil come from His hand.3 Philosophers of later generations have fashioned various defenses or theodicies for this longstanding theological problem which range from the importance of the choice between good and evil for morally significant action, to the necessity of evil in the valuable process of soul- building. However, attempts to explain why God allows the innocent to suffer have focused exclusively on one class of innocents to the exclusion of others—theodicies have tended to focus on the problem of human pain while the suffering of non-human animals4 has been little more than an afterthought. It can only be assumed that bias in favor of our own species has prevented many from appreciating the moral force of animal suffering. In his influential book, Animal Liberation, Peter Singer argues that there is no philosophically tenable justification for our ‘speciesism’: “…pain 1 Isaiah 65:25, New American Standard Bible (NASB). 2 Job 9:24, (NIV) New International Version 3 Job 2:10, (ASV) American Standard Version 4 Hereafter animals 1 is pain, and the importance of preventing unnecessary pain and suffering does not diminish because the being that suffers is not a member of our species.”5 Failure to appreciate the problem of animal suffering for classical theism can only be attributed to a philosophically unjustified, yet deeply engrained, bias. For instance, some of the best- respected theodicies of our time assume—with very little or no argument—that animal suffering is of little moral importance. In Peter van Inwagen’s treatment of the problem of evil, he claims that “…the sufferings of human beings are a much worse
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basketball Coaching Resource Book
    Coaching Fundamentals Stepping into Coaching 2 Your Job Description 8 Communication 11 Rules, Equipment and Traditions 13 Teaching and Shaping Skills 25 The Games Approach to Teaching Basketball 36 Game Day Coaching 43 Teaching the Game Teaching Tactics; Skills and Games Offensive Tactics 54 Defensive Tactics 68 Teaching Individual Skills Introduction 77 Footwork 78 Dribbling 85 Passing and Catching 93 Shooting 100 Rebounding 111 Playing Defense 115 Key to Diagrams 121 Teaching Beyond the Game Teaching Fitness and Safety 122 Stretching 139 Not Using Tobacco, Alcohol and other Drugs 141 Teaching Character Development 143 Practice Plans…Are You Ready to Coach? Season Plans 149 Ages 6 to 7 Ages 8 to 9 Ages 10 to 11 - Weeks 1-5, Weeks 6-12 Ages 12 to 13 - Weeks 1-5, Weeks 6-12 1 STEPPING INTO COACHING If you are like most youth league coaches, you have probably been recruited from the ranks of concerned parents, sport enthusiasts, or community volunteers. Like many rookie and veteran coaches, you probably have had little formal instruction on how to coach. But when the call went out for coaches to assist with the local youth basketball program, you answered because you like children and enjoy basketball, and perhaps because you wanted to be involved in a worthwhile community activity. Your initial coaching assignment may be difficult. Like many volunteers, you may not know everything there is to know about basketball or about how to work with children. Coaching Youth Basketball will help you learn the basics of coaching basketball effectively. To start, let's take a look at what's involved in being a coach.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. James Naismith's 13 Original Rules of Basketball
    DR. JAMES NAISMITH’S 13 ORIGINAL RULES OF BASKETBALL 1. The ball may be thrown in any direction with one or both hands. 2. The ball may be batted in any direction with one or both hands (never with the fist). 3. A player cannot run with the ball. The player must throw it from the spot on which he catches it, allowance to be made for a man who catches the ball when running at a good speed. 4. The ball must be held in or between the hands; the arms or body must not be used for holding it. 5. No shouldering, holding, pushing, tripping, or striking in any way the person of an opponent shall be allowed; the first infringement of this rule by any person shall count as a foul, the second shall disqualify him until the next goal is made, or if there was evident intent to injure the person, for the whole of the game, no substitute allowed. 6. A foul is striking at the ball with the fist, violation of rules 3 and 4, and such as described in rule 5. 7. If either side makes three consecutive fouls, it shall count a goal for the opponents (consecutive means without the opponents in the meantime making a foul). 8. A goal shall be made when the ball is thrown or batted from the grounds into the basket and stays there, providing those defending the goal do not touch or disturb the goal. If the ball rests on the edge and the opponent moves the basket it shall count as a goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary the Purpose of the Dissertation Is to Present The
    Summary The purpose of the dissertation is to present the abductive argument of Richard Swinburne in favor of theism. Richard Swinburne was born on December 26, 1934. He is a British philosopher, a retired professor of the University of Oxford, where he held the position of Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion (Oriel College). He has devoted all his philosophical activity to the justification of the Christian faith – he has intended to show that it is rational to believe in God. The main thesis of the dissertation is that Swinburne’s concept of theism does not remain consistent with the assumption that God is perfectly good. This inconsistence comes from the fact that human experience of suffering cannot be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness, especially assuming that God allows or causes the suffering. The structure of the work corresponds to the logical construction of Swinburne’s line of reasoning. The first chapter – Methodology of Philosophy – describes the main philosophical methods Swinburne uses in presenting his arguments. It is divided into two parts: the first one (Theory of Explanation) primarily presents the Swinburne’s construction of the concept of coherence, which is a prerequisite for considering any theory as probable or true. Moreover, this part discusses Swinburne’s dual explanatory theory, according to which two types of explanation are possible: (1) scientific, based on the analysis of unintentional causation, and (2) personal, based on the analysis of intentional causation. At the same time, Swinburne tries to show that it is not possible to explain certain phenomena in the world only by means of scientific explanation.
    [Show full text]
  • Basketball and Philosophy, Edited by Jerry L
    BASKE TBALL AND PHILOSOPHY The Philosophy of Popular Culture The books published in the Philosophy of Popular Culture series will il- luminate and explore philosophical themes and ideas that occur in popu- lar culture. The goal of this series is to demonstrate how philosophical inquiry has been reinvigorated by increased scholarly interest in the inter- section of popular culture and philosophy, as well as to explore through philosophical analysis beloved modes of entertainment, such as movies, TV shows, and music. Philosophical concepts will be made accessible to the general reader through examples in popular culture. This series seeks to publish both established and emerging scholars who will engage a major area of popular culture for philosophical interpretation and exam- ine the philosophical underpinnings of its themes. Eschewing ephemeral trends of philosophical and cultural theory, authors will establish and elaborate on connections between traditional philosophical ideas from important thinkers and the ever-expanding world of popular culture. Series Editor Mark T. Conard, Marymount Manhattan College, NY Books in the Series The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick, edited by Jerold J. Abrams The Philosophy of Martin Scorsese, edited by Mark T. Conard The Philosophy of Neo-Noir, edited by Mark T. Conard Basketball and Philosophy, edited by Jerry L. Walls and Gregory Bassham BASKETBALL AND PHILOSOPHY THINKING OUTSIDE THE PAINT EDITED BY JERRY L. WALLS AND GREGORY BASSHAM WITH A FOREWORD BY DICK VITALE THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Publication
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism
    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review
    New Insights and Directions for Religious Epistemology http://www.newinsights.ox.ac.uk Literature Review Analytic epistemology experienced a monumental resurgence in the latter part of the twentieth century. A short paper by Edmund Gettier launched a frenzied era of original research into the nature of some of our central epistemic concepts, e.g., knowledge, justification, rationality, belief, defeat, and evidence. The excitement of Gettier’s challenge to the view that knowledge is justified true belief drew interest from a wide range of very talented philosophers. Formidable figures such as Fred Dretske, John Pollack, Robert Nozick, Roderick Chisholm, Alvin Goldman, Marshall Swain, David Armstrong, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Richard Swinburne, and Gilbert Harman, to name just a few, published widely on the foregoing epistemic concepts. This outpouring of original research meant that new theoretical tools and insights became available for application in philosophy of religion. Religious epistemology, taking advantage of this resurgence in mainstream epistemology, experienced a new era of original research. William Alston, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Alvin Plantinga, and Richard Swinburne all played a particularly central role in this resurgence. Alston, in his popular book Perceiving God, argued that religious beliefs held by way of religious experience are just as justified as our regular or quotidian perceptual beliefs. In his masterpiece Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga, inspired by (i) the notion of a basic belief in the epistemic theory of foundationalism, (ii) his proper functioning account of warrant, and (iii) John Calvin’s theology, defended the position that Christian beliefs are warranted if true. The broad outlines of his position came to be labeled “Reformed Epistemology.” Wolterstorff, in his Reason within the Bounds of Religion, provided an elegant and sophisticated account of the role religious belief play in an agent’s overall epistemic “web” of beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • Basketball's "Unwritten" Rules
    archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Basketball_05.doc (also …Basketball_05.pdf) => doc pdf URL-doc URL-pdf more sports-related articles are on the /Sports.htm page at doc pdf URL Basketball's "Unwritten" Rules [StealthSkater note: There are formal written rules as to how Basketball games are played. But there also exists "unwritten rules" regarding etiquette etc. I found that these are not as spelled out as much as in Baseball (e.g., see => doc pdf URL ). Nonetheless, here is what I found ...] 1. If your team is winning at the end of a game, don't take a shot at the buzzer. It makes you look cocky and is a sign of disrespect to the other team. This is just considered unsportsmanlike. Usually at the end of a lopsided game if the winning team has the ball for the last possession, the losing team won’t even bother to guard the offensive players. This is a sign that the losing team has conceded the game. At this time, the player with the ball should just dribble the ball and run out the clock 2. Usually players shake hands, hug, etc. after the game. They know that the NBA is just a brotherhood of players. Even if 2 players get in a scuffle during the game, it usually isn't meant with hard feelings after the game. 3. If one of your teammates gets in a scuffle, you should stand up for that player. Stand your ground in a way that it won’t escalate the problem. Most players know their teammates have their back.
    [Show full text]
  • Basketball Basics for New Players and Coaches -- Learn the Basic Rules, Concepts, Court Layout, and Player Positions
    Basketball Basics for New Players and Coaches -- Learn the Basic Rules, Concepts, Court Layout, and Player Positions FREE! Get 72 of our favorite basketball drills and 32 of our favorite basketball plays. The rules of basketball, thankfully, are fairly straightforward. However, for the younger players, some rules can be easily forgotten. The three-second rule addressing how long an offensive player can be in the key before clearing out is a good example. Once you have taught the rules of the game to your team, there is a simple way to make sure that they don't forget them. Have them tell you the rules. Spend a few minutes during each practice quizzing them. Make it fun. Additionally, you can teach and reinforce the rules of the game during drills. Before you can teach the rules to your team, you must know them yourself... The Rules Basketball is a team sport. Two teams of five players each try to score by shooting a ball through a hoop elevated 10 feet above the ground. The game is played on a rectangular floor called the court, and there is a hoop at each end. The court is divided into two main sections by the mid-court line. If the offensive team puts the ball into play behind the mid- court line, it has ten seconds to get the ball over the mid-court line. If it doesn't, then the defense gets the ball. Once the offensive team gets the ball over the mid-court line, it can no longer have possession of the ball in the area in back of the line.
    [Show full text]
  • The Existence of God
    The Existence of God Richard Swinburne Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that there is a God explains why there is a physical universe at all; why there are the scientific laws there are; why animals and then human beings have evolved; why humans have the opportunity to mould their characters and those of their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the environment in which we live; why we have the well-authenticated account of Christ‟s life, death and resurrection; why throughout the centuries millions of people (other than ourselves) have had the apparent experience of being in touch with an guided by God, and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does so better than any other explanation that can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.In this lecture I shall try to show you how it makes sense of the first three of these phenomena.That phenomena evident to all, and in particular the universe and its order, provide good grounds for believing that God exists has been a general Christian, Jewish, and Islamic conviction.The production of arguments to show this is called „natural theology‟, and it might be useful to start with a few remarks about the place of natural theology in Christian tradition . The prophet Jeremiah wrote of the “covenant of night and day”,1 indicating that the regularity by which day succeeded night showed that the god in charge of the Universe was powerful and reliable, viz, that that god was God.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Officiating Techniques (IOT) Version 1.1 This Referees Manual Is Based on FIBA Official Basketball Rules 2020
    FIBA REFEREES MANUAL Individual Officiating Techniques (IOT) version 1.1 This Referees Manual is based on FIBA Official Basketball Rules 2020. In case of discrepancy between different language editions on the meaning or interpretation of a word or phrase, the English text prevails. The content cannot be modified and presented with the FIBA logo, without written permission from the FIBA Referee Operations. Throughout the Referees Manual, all references made to a player, coach, referee, etc., in the male gender also apply to the female gender. It must be understood that this is done for practical reasons only. August 2020, All Rights Reserved. FIBA - International Basketball Federation 5 Route Suisse, PO Box 29 1295 Mies Switzerland fiba.basketball Tel: +41 22 545 00 00 Fax: +41 22 545 00 99 This material is created by the FIBA Referee Operations. If you identify an error or a discrepancy in this material,please notify the FIBA Referee Operations at [email protected] FIBA REFEREES MANUAL Individual Officiating Techniques / v1.0 P / 2 Foreword Basketball, as a game, is progressing in skill and speed every day. It is a natural environmental development process that takes place unconditionally and it is called evolution. The game and more so refereeing has completely changed from 10 years ago. Presently, top level refereeing is improving at least at the same speed as the game itself and higher standards of performance are expected every year. The pace of change has necessitated the adoption of a motto: “What was considered exceptionally good yesterday, is considered standard quality today and below average quality tomorrow”.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiba Basketball Rules 2020 Pdf
    Fiba basketball rules 2020 pdf Continue At the most basic level, the rules of basketball make it an easy game to learn and a simple game to play. However, like any sport once played at the elite level, many additional rules intervene in order to resolve many situations that may arise during a competitive game. FIBA makes decisions, publishes and adapts the official rules of basketball, which are the only basketball rules recognized at the international level. They are comprehensive and apply to all aspects of the game that are associated with the rule. FIBA's 5-on-5 rules are slightly different from those of the NBA, WNBA and NCAA. The basic rules of basketball are explained in the video below: Find all relevant documents in the document library. MIES (Switzerland) - Following amendments put forward by the Technical Commission and approved by the FIBA Central Council in March 2020, FIBA has published the Official Basketball Rules 2020. From October 1, 2020, the new rules of official fiba basketball come into force. Major changes to FIBA's new official basketball 2020 rules include: Player Definition of Double Foul Definition of Nonsports Foul in Situations of Rapid Break Determining the Duties of Table Officials (Scorer and Timer) Instant Use of the Fiba Programming System and Reporting Protocol Of FIBA Approved Basketball Equipment In addition to the above, some minor editorial changes have been made. Fiba Technical Commission chairman Patrick Hunt said: These rule changes, approved by FIBA Central Council, were aimed at improving the level and quality of our game. Very positive and constructive cooperation between the FIBA Players' Commission, the World Basketball Coaches Association (WABC), the FIBA Competition Commission and the Rules Advisory Group (RAG) prior to the technical commission's proposals for their review are highly valued.
    [Show full text]