Is Competition Ethical?

The zero sum of what, exactly?

Funny, I’m taught that it’s ethical to put in more than you take. Selflessness and all that.

It should all be ok.

Human civilization runs on violence and the threat of violence.

This post makes no sense whatsoever. A bunch of gibber-jabber.

The fact that you see the world through the eyes of a prisoner or slave says a lot about you.

I have no intention or desire for a utopia. No, my philosophy is all about unleashing nature and destroying dystopian nightmares.

Which makes this entire thread hilariously self-contradicting.

Nature is all about competition, conflict, and violence.

Violence, aka, the threat of violent force is at the foundation of all non-violence.

In order to ban competition you have to compete.

In order to have genuine competition there is no morality, ethics, laws, or regulations.

All and everything is allowed.

Yes, it does, it says that unlike you, I am not enslaved, which proves my point, that you’re a slave who’s merely annoyed because his slavemaster is not taking care of him.

Did you choose to be born, HaHaHa? Or were you brought into this world forcefully and then later made to forget this fact through all sorts of bribes?

Life is not about competition it is about evolution, change and growth. Competion and such are just tools.

While I do agree that Celine’s efforts are misguided – or so it seems – I think that your criticisms are even more misguided. It is people like you, who have submitted to Nature, that are the real problem, not Celine’s dislike for competition, which is not only perfectly normal, but also perfectly noble.

What’s the problem you have with anti-violence stance?

You can use retaliatory violence to reduce violence. There is nothing self-contradicting here. Isn’t this supposed to be pretty apparent? To people like you I would say, if you want to be able to understand what I am saying, instead of misunderstanding my position so that you can easily dismiss it, you will have to overcome the impulse to misinterpret, banalize and belittle which completely dominates you.

I agree that Celine is mistaken about her view that Nature is peaceful, but this is not a reason to submit to it like you do. Both your submission to Nature and Celine’s mistaken view about Nature are a product of the inability to maintain the dualism and the antagonism between self and nature, will and instinct. You just do it in two different ways with your way actually being worse because it creates many more problems than Celine’s way does.

Did you choose to be born, Arbiter?

To be pro-life in the face of the fact that you never chose to be born in the first place is to be a slave. By definition.

Do you deny the distinction between imprisonment and slavery?

Notice how HaHaHa denies it and feels proud about it. He thinks that being imprisoned is the same as being enslaved.

Just because you can spot a flaw in the other does not mean you are superior. The flaw in Celine’s thinking, which is the mistaken view of Nature, is nothing compared to your flaw, which is the submission to competition. You can pride yourself all you want in being “realistic” or whatever, but in reality, it is you who are inferior.

You are a clown.

I was a test tube baby born out of a laboratory.

Oh, yeah (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562).

Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically - by competition, by a false selection principle (|) as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.

No. Of course: No.

No. It is not too late to replace it.

That would send us back to the late 1700’s, prior the Industrial Revolution, because the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700’s.

You have opened an interesting thread. Thank you.

So: Is competition ethical? I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?

Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all – aristole
voluntarism is a state of society where the only government is reason – michael schawb

war/violence is dual, not many people realize it.
if you invade a country, you are not defending your country you are attacking people you are defending their country.

Your stance cannot be defended because weaponry has become more destructive over the centuries… you only make sense if you agree with the blow up of the planet.

I never spoke about banning competition but argued in favor Reason, based on the advance of technology that is going to eliminate the middle and poor classes, which are themselves the result of competition. Nothing last forever. Our current paradigm has shown its boundaries.

Nature doesnt even care about our own subjective input, sense of supremacy,or competition. The day a meteorite big enough strikes earth, even the most competitive individuals will die, unless they were prepared and had a bunker because they knew. But even in this case survival doesnt depends on violence but Knowledge, Reason. If you know that competition is going to eventually eradicate 90% of your species, why wouldnt Reason take over instead??? Which is why we are humans in the first place, the ability to reason. However in many occasions I explained in this thread why humans are not animals, mainly because they have the dominion over nature. Regarding oneself as an animal could be just about a lack of self esteem, or even perhaps self-hatred?

But you are asking: “Is competition ethical?”

I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?

they are not allowed to compete IS competition, dumbing down of the masses is pervasive throughout history. Hence is the ultimate goal of competition itself. There is no competition but a zero sum game, no profits, within a system that is fully transparent. Competiton breeds collusion, slavery and human slaughterhouses. Who on earth can support it when understanding that collusion and competition are inherent bed fellows? The world state of affairs proves it.

our 4000 year competitive model is no longer defensible.

Competition can never be ethical or moral.

Reason’d compete with darwin and end it. But in this case Reason is empathetic, so it is ethical because it cares about the whole

Evolution is competition of breeding and heredity, that one couple breeds superior children to yours, which would not be difficult to do.

Reason and technological ingenuity is the exact thing that has created this hyper competitive post industrial world.

No, reason isn’t moral or ethical at all my dear.

Again: competition is a tool… Now do not knee jerk reaction this take time to think out of the box.