Philosophy Now Forum

A little provocative title, but I would appriciate if you guys here could offer a thoughtful, constructive discussion about some thoughts of mine.

Firstly, I think that the golden rule is a necessary moral principle, or maybe I should say meta-principle, a filter through which any proposed moral norm must pust through it, basically, I just think that if anything is right/ good for me (to have or do), it must be also right/ good for you (to have or do), and if something is wrong/ bad for you, it must also be wrong/ bad for me. I think that consistent behavior is a the basis for morality, I guess it's something like the notion of universalizability.

Then, I started to think about competition, in any kind of competition there are winners and losers, whatever the competition is and whatever the "prize" is. If you willingly (ungrudgingly) participate in a competition, striving to be a winner, you are thereby necessarily striving to make someone else a loser. But if it's good for you to be the winner, than it must also be for good for others, if it's good for others to be losers, then it must be also good for you to be one. But it is impossible to participate in compeition and be consistent, you by definition must think that something (winning) is good for yourself but not others, and that something (losing) is right and good for other and not for yourself.

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.

So, competition is incompatible with the golden rule. The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition, but instead based on cooperation.

What are your thoughts?

I think you are competing to win this argument

-Imp

LOL

Ofc, if this is correct, the golden rule would also preclude debate, being that it is a type of competition, but it wouldn't preclude socratic dialectics, which is a cooperative striving for truth.

I don't think competing fairly goes against the golden rule. If I have a better product or service, or excel in something, I deserve that acknowledgment and success. And if someone else does, he does.

I enjoy winning at poker. But I won't begrudge another winning fair and square. I'll have my day too, and they know that.

greenju wrote: Firstly, I think that the golden rule is a necessary moral principle, or maybe I should say meta-principle, a filter through which any proposed moral norm must pust through it, basically, I just think that if anything is right/ good for me (to have or do), it must be also right/ good for you (to have or do), and if something is wrong/ bad for you, it must also be wrong/ bad for me. I think that consistent behavior is a the basis for morality, I guess it's something like the notion of universalizability.

Yes. It's how we socialize youngsters: "How would like somebody to do that to you?" And it's always valid. People who happen to have the upper hand in any given situation prefer to forget that this is so - and when their victims turn around and demand retribution, they're shocked.

Then, I started to think about competition

And that's where you mixed up three separate concepts. Competition among equals is not immoral. Everyone who chooses to participate in a competition, such as sports or board--games or cooking or dancing contests, or seeking promotion at work, is well aware of the odds. There will be one winner and many non-winners, ranked according to whatever rules are set out.
This could be a casual basketball game, just for fun: one week, skins are champions, the next week, it's shirts. No trophy, no shame. Or it could be friendly card-games, where the winner takes home a little pile of beans. Next time, the loser has to bring more beans. Neither party did to the other what they would not accept, and expect, the other to do to them.
Or it could be more serious: a competition for the best home design. One of thirty-three applicants will see his or her house built. It will be the best house - for whoever ends up living in it. The other thirty-two applicants will learn something - every one of them will be a better architect after, than they were before. Nobody was hurt and the best was rewarded. Maybe the bottom three or four will go to work for the winner, and continue to improve their craft.
Or it could be a lot more serious: a decathlon among paramedics. The winner - the best performer in all relevant skills - will lead the rescue team; all the rest will be the rescue team. These guys will know, before they set out on a potentially dangerous mission, that their leader is competent, that he deserves to be the leader: they will have confidence in him. They will also have a pretty good idea of where each of the team members' strengths and weaknesses are, who should be assigned which task for the best possible chance of success.
Competition has several legitimate functions in a society that conforms to the golden rule.

When you transpose that process to an economic system, you're switching concepts. Economics is never about talent or skill - it's about concerted group efforts for the welfare of a society as a whole. Or it should be. Instead, it's usually about greed, almost never between consenting participants, or equals, or on a level playing field.
Then you add a component of social stigma, where winners are deified all out of proportion to their achievements, and losers at anything, even the most trivial and silly games, are derided, you have not only smashed the golden rule; you poison social interaction.
If you then also add coercion - everybody has to compete at and for everything, whether they want to or not, whether they've been prepared or not, whether they have the necessary tools or not - you have a dysfunctional society.

The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition, but instead based on cooperation.

Certainly, the golden rule would mandate exactly that, and all societies should organize their economies to best serve their members.
But a society with a decent economic and political system could still have exciting soccer games, and you would still have to impress the girl more than your rival does, and you could still choose the most talented singer to star in a variety show.

greenju wrote:
The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition but instead based on cooperation

This is false equivalence since the golden rule is a moral for individual behaviour so it does not apply to nations as such
You can however apply it to nations if you wish but it would be a distortion of what it was and indeed is intended to be
Furthermore nations are required to follow national and international laws which are not the same as individual morals

Imagine a world where nation-states conformed to the same moral standards as individuals,
and where individuals actually conformed to the moral standards they profess!

Skip wrote:Imagine a world where nation-states conformed to the same moral standards as individuals,
and where individuals actually conformed to the moral standards they profess!

Imagine if publically-traded corporations had ethical standards beyond profit and externalizing loss.

Two more posts and we'll have a hit song.

Skip wrote:Two more posts and we'll have a hit song.

You might say I'm a dreamer... Aww, fuck it...

Dalek Prime wrote:I don't think competing fairly goes against the golden rule.

This question I posted here doesn't concern things external to competition (whether it is entered into voluntarily, does it have good consequences, etc), nor things in some sense internal to it (such as whether it's fair, humane, are winners chosen on merit, etc.) but it concerns only the framework of competition itself. Putting aside all other questions, the question here is- does the golden rule imply that competition (per se) is wrong.

I enjoy winning at poker. But I won't begrudge another winning fair and square. I'll have my day too, and they know that.

This introduces the dimension of different events. One could say in accordance with the golden rule "I want for myself that T win sometimes, and I want for others to win somethimes too", and say that wouldn't break the golder rule, but there are two problems there. First is that it makes morality relative, similar to e.g. saying "it's wrong to kill or weekdays, but it's ok to kill during the weekend". Secondly, it's impossible to practice such a thing, because every time you compete you strive to win, if you are not striving to win (in whatever sense a win is constituted in the competition you participate), you're not competing. So, you can't really want to sometimes win and sometimes lose, you can expect to sometimes win and sometimes lose, and be ok with that prospect, which is an opinion, but what you *do*, which counts morally, when you compete- is try to win.

Skip wrote:Competition among equals is not immoral. Everyone who chooses to participate in a competition ...

Well, whether competition is immoral is exactly the question. Also, whether people in the competition are equals, whether they entered into it voluntarily, whether they do it for money or fun or whatever, whether the stakes in the competition are big or small, whether the contest is fair or not, whether it's big or small, whether it lasts for a long or a short time, etc, etc, those are things which are irrelevant to the question of whether the golden rule implies that competition in itself is wrong.

The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition, but instead based on cooperation.

Certainly, the golden rule would mandate exactly that, and all societies should organize their economies to best serve their members.
But a society with a decent economic and political system could still have exciting soccer games, and you would still have to impress the girl more than your rival does, and you could still choose the most talented singer to star in a variety show.[/quote]

surreptitious57 wrote:This is false equivalence since the golden rule is a moral for individual behaviour so it does not apply to nations

All social groups and instutions are products of human action, and being that human actions are the topic of morality, thereby so is society, we don't only wonder whether individuals are just, but also whether societies are just or not.

Meh. I have a preference for cooperation anyways. But I would want someone to compete fairly with me, and would do the same, win or lose. Of course I want to win. But I don't think fair, level competition transgresses the spirt of the Golden rule.

Dalek Prime wrote: But I would want someone to compete fairly with me,

Sure, but that's another question. That is concerned with what some specific competition is like, what is it's character. 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.

Well, if everything that's relevant to the competition being discussed is irrelevant to the question, then competition is irrelevant to the question, and you haven't so much posed a question to be discussed as stated a closed opinion in the form of a question.

All of life is competitive; much of life is co-operative. Intelligent life-forms are aware of the competitions in which they are engaged and make progressively more complex rules regarding the conduct of their intra-specific competitions, in the framework of co-operative survival.

That golden rule (or 'veil of ignorance' law) was formulated by a complex and intelligent life-form that clearly understood that competition and co-operation both play vital parts in its social interaction and must be regulated.

If the golden rule implies that competition is wrong or if it doesn't

It doesn't. We've said that quite clearly, and went on to explain why.
(PS nobody would enjoy winning all the time.)

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.

Why? No rule is that rigid; they all come with corollaries, exceptions and conditions.

I'm with Skip on this. Context is everything.