jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Can one say that winning is objectively good, and then also assert that losing is objectively bad? Can these things both be objectively valid at the same time considering that one is at the expense of the other? I'm just trying to work through a train of thought and need some help
SamuelS Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I would think the value of winning/losing in a competition is entirely subjective as with any other valuation. Cheating may be objectively bad, but I don't think there's any moral issue to playing games w other voluntary participants.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 Samuels, Is valuation the same as preference? Or are they two different things completely? If they are distinctly different, could you explain how?
Wuzzums Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 You cannot have winning without losing, one implies the other. Two people in a competition cannot both win or lose at the same time, so winning (or losing) is not UPB. So "winning is good" is just a preference because if it is objective then it doesn't matter who wins, what matters is that someone won. And if someone won then everybody wins including the ones that lost, because without them nobody would have won. Thus losing is also objectively good.
Tyler Durden Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 It all depends on what kind of game you're playing. If you're playing a game of "who can be the most virtuous", then yes, winning is objectively better than losing. But if you're playing a game of "who can steal the most money" then it's the exact opposite. And if you're playing a game of checkers it just doesn't really matter.
SamuelS Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Samuels, Is valuation the same as preference? Or are they two different things completely? If they are distinctly different, could you explain how? google defines preference as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others" and value as "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something"so these are different concepts, though preference plays into value -- you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win...unless you prefer to lose. one way to look at preference in valuation...I don't want to give my wallet to a mugger, but given the choice between being robbed and the alternative, I prefer to be robbed and keep my life, I value my life higher than my wallet. a voluntary example...I've got a pile of t-shirts, I value them <$10, you've got a $10 and value it lower than a t-shirt, so we trade. we each get the thing that we prefer and each got that which we subjectively valued higher. you might prefer to have paid $5 for the shirt, but you valued it >$10. both preference and value are subjective, and value includes the element of preference.
Ruben Zandstra Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 What's the first real time example for this proposition that comes to mind for you?
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 google defines preference as "a greater liking for one alternative over another or others" and value as "the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something"so these are different concepts, though preference plays into value -- you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win...unless you prefer to lose. one way to look at preference in valuation...I don't want to give my wallet to a mugger, but given the choice between being robbed and the alternative, I prefer to be robbed and keep my life, I value my life higher than my wallet. a voluntary example...I've got a pile of t-shirts, I value them <$10, you've got a $10 and value it lower than a t-shirt, so we trade. we each get the thing that we prefer and each got that which we subjectively valued higher. you might prefer to have paid $5 for the shirt, but you valued it >$10. both preference and value are subjective, and value includes the element of preference. So value comes first, and then preference. Like in your example of getting mugged. That makes sense. Although you did reverse the order in the previous paragraph when you stated "you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win." So, according to UPB, some preferences are not subjective right? Some preferences are universal, which means they are objective right? What's the first real time example for this proposition that comes to mind for you? Are you asking me? So "winning is good" is just a preference because if it is objective then it doesn't matter who wins, what matters is that someone won. And if someone won then everybody wins including the ones that lost, because without them nobody would have won. I follow that. So you're saying, logically, that winning can not be a universal preference.
SamuelS Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I could be misunderstanding, I've only listened to about 80% of the audiobook (I keep falling asleep near the end!) but I don't think UPB claims any preference to be universal...you might say that breathing is a universal preference, but this wouldn't be the case for a suicidal person... Objectivity requires that preference be taken out of the equation..."that's a painting" objective, "that's a pretty painting (and I prefer it over another)" subjective.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 It all depends on what kind of game you're playing. If you're playing a game of "who can be the most virtuous", then yes, winning is objectively better than losing. But if you're playing a game of "who can steal the most money" then it's the exact opposite. And if you're playing a game of checkers it just doesn't really matter. Tyler Durden, why is the game of checkers of no consequence? If it was of no consequence, why would anyone play it in the first place?
SamuelS Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 So value comes first, and then preference. Like in your example of getting mugged. That makes sense. Although you did reverse the order in the previous paragraph when you stated "you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win." I don't think the order is terribly important. Could be wrong, but I don't think so. The winning/losing sentence would have the same meaning if restructured to "because you prefer to win, you would value winning higher than losing."I would think preference dictates, to some degree, value -- I prefer this to that, therefore I value this higher than that. So, perhaps value contains preference, but preference doesn't contain value since value is more precise where preference is just order...for example: I have an Apple, Orange, and Pear. I prefer them in that order, but that doesn't tell you anything about where I value them.I value the Apple @ $1, the Orange @ $0.75 and the Pear at $0.25 -- you can deduce my preference from my valuation but not my valuation from my preference.
LovePrevails Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I don't think so, it is preferable to win but only aesthetically you might learn more from losing than winning therefor it is not objectively good to win
dsayers Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Samuels, Is valuation the same as preference? In the context of your seeking objectivity, yes. Because both are subjective. I love a good meal, but I just had a good meal. Therefore "a good meal" is not of the same value to me in this moment as it was in the moment before I ate. Whereas before, I would've preferred to eat, I now would prefer not to eat for a bit.
Tyler Durden Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Tyler Durden, why is the game of checkers of no consequence? If it was of no consequence, why would anyone play it in the first place? It is of consequence, just not of any moral consequence. People play it because they think it's fun, it's social, and it's a way to sharpen cognitive abilities. From an evolutionary standpoint it's logical to value social and cognitive skills and to value getting better at them. The opponent is just a way to measure your own level. That's why it feels better to beat a professional than to beat someone who plays for the first time.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 It is of consequence, just not of any moral consequence. People play it because they think it's fun, it's social, and it's a way to sharpen cognitive abilities. From an evolutionary standpoint it's logical to value social and cognitive skills and to value getting better at them. The opponent is just a way to measure your own level. That's why it feels better to beat a professional than to beat someone who plays for the first time. Hmmm, if we sat down to play chess, and I decided to try to lose without telling you. And I did this every time, which made your chess playing experience lacking to say the least, would you consider my actions immoral? You would be being deceived.
Tyler Durden Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Hmmm, if we sat down to play chess, and I decided to try to lose without telling you. And I did this every time, which made your chess playing experience lacking to say the least, would you consider my actions immoral? You would be being deceived. Technically yes, because you would be deceiving me. But because it's such a trivial topic it would barely register on my morality meter. It would be about as insignificant as stealing a pencil from my home or something.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 So, it is moral to try to win in a competition right? Because, having a competition pre-suposses that both parties are trying to win. Anything else would be deception right?
jpahmad Posted April 11, 2014 Author Posted April 11, 2014 So therefore, if you win a competition, that is the result of doing something morally right. Correct?
dsayers Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 In a game of chess, unless you break their chess set, nothing about the game relates to behavior AND the property of another person. Playing/winning/losing chess would therefore be amoral.
jpahmad Posted April 11, 2014 Author Posted April 11, 2014 In a game of chess, unless you break their chess set, nothing about the game relates to behavior Hmmm, if we sat down to play chess, and I decided to try to lose without telling you. And I did this every time, which made your chess playing experience lacking to say the least, would you consider my actions immoral? You would be being deceived.
Recommended Posts