[greenju]

The golden rule is "treat others as you would like others to treat yourself". In competition, you strive to be a winner. Your treatment of others is wanting to make them losers. If you were to want others to treat you in the same way that would mean that you want them to make you the loser. But that is contradictory, you can't at the same time both want to be a winner and want to be a loser.

It would seem that if you want to follow the golden rule, you can't engage in competition, that the golden rule implies that competition is wrong, and that one shouldn't willingly participate in competition, whatever it is- sports, fighting, debate, etc, and if we were to apply this to political/ economic systems, it would preclude elections and markets, suggesting that people should find cooperative alternatives to such competative institutions.

Specific implications are not that important now, I would like to see do you agree that golden rule implies wrongness of competition, is there a mistake in there, and in general what are your thoughts about this?

[kobe]

No, I disagree. If I'm playing a game, I don't want my opponent to want to lose. How much fun would that be? Competitive games are much more fun when both sides do whatever it takes to win and have a similar skill gap.

[greenju]

But in a competition by striving to win you are by definition striving for your opponent to lose, that's basically what makes it a competition, you can't all win, that wouldn't be a competition, if there is no end result where someone is better than others and thereby a winner, then that's not competition.

[kobe]

I have no idea what you are saying. In your original post, you said that it's impossible for me to want to win while following the golden rule. However, I pointed out that's not the case. I want my opponent to do everything in his power to win, just as I will do everything in my power to win. That is the true spirit of competition. This is further supported by how we view competition culturally. We consider a lopsided game to be boring and uninteresting, in fact many do not consider it to be a competition when one team dominates another so.

[taltom]

This is conflating different situations, as well as oversimplifying. Most of our social interactions are not ostensibly competitive (although they may be in subtle ways). We get by in our societies by striving not to subject our fellows to unnecessary suffering, because it can rebound on us as vengeance. But human interactions are extremely complex, leading to phenomena like "coopetition". And we may cooperate fully with our small band while competing with outsiders. Witness the dynamic within a family of siblings as they compete with one another for money, attention, love, and other resources, yet will band together to repel outsiders bent on domination.

Being compassionate is the way that humans can stand to live with one another. The Golden Rule is at the heart of compassion. It's so important that most humans have built-in reluctance to harm other tribal members. But too much compassion leads to the individual being dominated and kept away from resources.

Sociologists have long noted that human society is a delicate balance between mutual consideration and sharing, and competition for hierarchy, mates, and other resources. It's not an either-or; it's a continuum.

[Truth To Power]

The golden rule is "treat others as you would like others to treat yourself". In competition, you strive to be a winner. Your treatment of others is wanting to make them losers. If you were to want others to treat you in the same way that would mean that you want them to make you the loser. But that is contradictory, you can't at the same time both want to be a winner and want to be a loser.

It would seem that if you want to follow the golden rule, you can't engage in competition, that the golden rule implies that competition is wrong, and that one shouldn't willingly participate in competition, whatever it is- sports, fighting, debate, etc, and if we were to apply this to political/ economic systems, it would preclude elections and markets, suggesting that people should find cooperative alternatives to such competative institutions.

Specific implications are not that important now, I would like to see do you agree that golden rule implies wrongness of competition, is there a mistake in there, and in general what are your thoughts about this?

The Golden Rule is fine as a general caveat about relations with others, but it is not an exhaustive guide. There are many situations where it does not work -- for example, it wouldn't do for a man to go around hugging all the women whom he would want to hug him; a belligerent individual should not pick fights with all the people he would want to pick fights with him; etc. A more broadly applicable yet much more consistent moral rule is the non-deprivation principle: do not seek forcibly to deprive others of what they would otherwise have. This rule also dovetails quite neatly with rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor.

[Zamuel]

No, I disagree. If I'm playing a game, I don't want my opponent to want to lose. How much fun would that be? Competitive games are much more fun when both sides do whatever it takes to win and have a similar skill gap.

Yes ... Ideally competition motivates all involved to give their best and inspire each other to extend their capabilities.

But in a competition by striving to win you are by definition striving for your opponent to lose

No, DOING that is a waste of resources that detracts from your performance.

you can't all win, that wouldn't be a competition

You seem to equate winning with domination. That's a fallacy externally imposed by factors exploiting the competition for their own ends.

if there is no end result where someone is better than others and thereby a winner, then that's not competition.

in a non exploitive environment ... the best competitions are the ones that have no end.

Zam

[SolarCross]

The Golden Rule is a stupid Christian trick, forget it.

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law" is much better.

[Drlee]

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law" is much better.

Crowley? Really? Thelemites

[SolarCross]

Crowley? Really? Thelemites

Aleister Crowley was a fine upstanding Englishman and eccentric. However nevermind the source of the quote, the meaning is the matter.

[greenju]

I have no idea what you are saying. In your original post, you said that it's impossible for me to want to win while following the golden rule. However, I pointed out that's not the case. I want my opponent to do everything in his power to win, just as I will do everything in my power to win. That is the true spirit of competition.

Interesting point. But when inspected, it doesn't work- because it's not really parallel, you're not actually being consistent. You may want in your competitors the desire to win, the striving to win, but in yourself you don't want just a desire for the win, you want also the win. So, for youself you want the win, but for your competitors you want just the desire for win, but not the win itself.

This is further supported by how we view competition culturally. We consider a lopsided game to be boring and uninteresting, in fact many do not consider it to be a competition when one team dominates another so.

This is a question about of what kind and character is some competition, but my question concerns competition in itself, no matter what kind it is, no matter what it's specific traits are. If the golden rule implies that competition is wrong or if it doesn't imply that, in both cases that would apply to every competition, the one with all the worst characteristics, the one with all the best characteristics and all the ones in between.

Most of our social interactions are not ostensibly competitive (although they may be in subtle ways).

That's talk about "is" , my question is about "ought".

But human interactions are extremely complex, leading to phenomena like "coopetition".

If competition is immoral, then besides removing competition, we would also have the imperative to remove competitive aspects from complex behaviors which involve them.

And we may cooperate fully with our small band while competing with outsiders.

If competition is immoral that would just mean that people who behave like this are immoral towards outsider but not so towards their small band.

[greenju]

The Golden Rule is fine as a general caveat about relations with others, but it is not an exhaustive guide. There are many situations where it does not work -- for example, it wouldn't do for a man to go around hugging all the women whom he would want to hug him; a belligerent individual should not pick fights with all the people he would want to pick fights with him; etc.

This is an old objection, Bernard Shaw had a line "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different". But it also has an old response, the point is this objection overlooks the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account other's tastes as you would that they should take yours into account. So, e.g. if the belligerent individual picks fights with people who don't want to fight actually doesn't want follow the golden rule because he cannot want other to pick fights with his when he doesn't want to fight (it is contradictory to want do not want something). And if the golden rule precludes competition, then also consenting fighters would be breaking it. x)

But that's besides the point, regardless of whether one accepts the golden rule (and this also responds to taxizen), he can still ponder does it imply that competition is wrong.

No, DOING that is a waste of resources that detracts from your performance.

You do that by definition. E.g. if two people people are competing (which necessarily means that one will be winner and the other one will be the loser of that competition), both of them are striving to win, and just by the virtue of that fact - they are striving for the other person to lose, because if person A wins that means person B lost, if person B wins that means that person A lost. Person A by striving to win by definition strives to make person B the loser.

[Zamuel]

No, DOING that is a waste of resources that detracts from your performance.

You do that by definition. If two people people are competing (which necessarily means that one will be winner and the other one will be the loser of that competition), both of them striving to win, and just by the virtue of that fact they are striving for the other person to lose, because if person A wins that means person B lost, if person B wins that means that person A lost. Person A by striving to win by definition strives to make person B the loser.

Logically, if one wins another must lose, correct it's a simple inversion ... But your suggestion involves focused motivation "striving for your opponent to lose" and directed intention. And a goal (winning) oriented action cannot be redefined by the logical inversion of it's effect.

Let A = your "striving "to Win.
Let B = Your Victory
Let C = Your opponent's loss

- IF A then B - in which B=C does not in any way imply that A=C - OK ? Cause and effect are not transpositional.

"Striving" for your opponent to lose is a completely different motivation (Call it D) than A. Redirection of motivation diverts attention and energy away from A thereby preventing the complete devotion of your ability to A, weakening the probability of B.

A+D =<B and <B=C> ... Ta-Dah

Zam

[Truth To Power]

The Golden Rule is fine as a general caveat about relations with others, but it is not an exhaustive guide. There are many situations where it does not work -- for example, it wouldn't do for a man to go around hugging all the women whom he would want to hug him; a belligerent individual should not pick fights with all the people he would want to pick fights with him; etc.

This is an old objection, Bernard Shaw had a line "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different". But it also has an old response, the point is this objection overlooks the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account other's tastes as you would that they should take yours into account. So, e.g. if the belligerent individual picks fights with people who don't want to fight actually doesn't want follow the golden rule because he cannot want other to pick fights with his when he doesn't want to fight (it is contradictory to want do not want something).

Problem is, if you want to make this applicable generally, it requires something like omniscience about what other people want as well as what you want. But people are too different, and their motivations often too obscure, for this to be possible. The Golden Rule may be useful, but it is not a substitute for actual moral philosophy.

[greenju]

Let A = your "striving "to Win.
Let B = Your Victory
Let C = Your opponent's loss

- IF A then B - in which B=C does not in any way imply that A=C - OK ?

Not okay, because it precisely does imply that. If B=C then "A→B" = "A→C". B is equivalent to C, and equivalents are commutative. B and C are the same situation, just two different descriptions of it, given from different perspectives. Saying person 1 won in itself says "person 2 lost". Your victory is the same as your opponent's loss. Striving for your victory by itself means you're striving for your opponent's loss.

"Striving" for your opponent to lose is a completely different motivation (Call it D) than A.

Firstly, you are conflating motivation with behavior. Secondly, people having different views of "motivation for your victory" and "motivation for your opponent's victory" just shows their irrationality being that "your victory" and "your opponent's victory" is the same situation. It's similar to the irrationality of e.g. loss aversion, and in general any case of having different view of the same thing because you label it differently.

[Drlee]

The golden rule is ubiquitous. IT first appeared in ancient Egyptian literature. In one form or another it appears in just about every religious construct. You are making too much of it.

For the record. The way I want others to 'do unto' me is not to let me gain in every circumstance. I want them to treat me fairly and I will treat them the same. Each individual must decide what that means for himself.

[Zamuel]

Let A = your "striving "to Win, Let B = Your Victory, Let C = Your opponent's loss, - IF A then B - in which B=C does not in any way imply that A=C - OK ?

Not okay, because it precisely does imply that. If B=C then "A→B" = "A→C". B is equivalent to C, and equivalents are commutative. B and C are the same situation, just two different descriptions of it, given from different perspectives. Saying person 1 won in itself says "person 2 lost". Your victory is the same as your opponent's loss. Striving for your victory by itself means you're striving for your opponent's loss.

So ..." F- " ... Logically someone wins = someone loses ... But those someones are distinctive lets call them i1 and i2, (ones victory over the other distinguishes them "in momentus exemplar," they do not equate thus Bi1 does not = Ci2. That's also demonstrable with an equation but I'm not going to bother ... you have a right to your delusions and disjunctive logic.

Zam

[greenju]

Sorry, but you're not making sense. What you're saying is like if you were to say that "taking an empty glass" is not the same as "taking a glass which has nothing in it", because two different (but equvivalent) labels (both of which imply the other one) are given for the same thing.

[Zamuel]

Sorry, but you're not making sense. What you're saying is like if you were to say that "taking an empty glass" is not the same as "taking a glass which has nothing in it", because two different (but equvivalent) labels (both of which imply the other one) are given for the same thing.

If two separate glasses have two different labels attached, they are different, and anyone willing to can discern that difference immediately.
(that's what labels are for).

Zam

[greenju]

I don't believe that people can be this inept at thinking, so I will assume that you are trolling, and will not engage your nonsense any more. Cheers.

Does anyone else have any thoughts about the propisition- that the golden rule implies that competition is wrong?