This is not a sports question although, I recognize that this mentality of praising only the winners is epitomized there. This is a sociocultural inquiry.
2006-06-21 01:33:11 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I added the more general word "comparison" to extent the scope of my question beyond competitions which are one kind of comparison. In any contest it is an indisputable fact that there are usually many more competitors who become contest losers when the first prize is awarded. How any one can dispute this fact is ,to be kind, is below my comprehension.
2006-06-23 03:47:16 · update #1
We are building a society that values competition over fellowship and cooperation. We are teaching our children to consider other people in terms of whether the person is an asset or a liability, rather than teaching them everyone is valuable.
2006-06-21 01:37:39 · answer #1 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You must consider Social Darwinism as a construct in which to think about for a question such as this.
By nature, we are competitive. the winners get recognized and sometimes rewarded for their efforts. This provides the motivation for everyone to want to be a winner, or at least come close.
We've done a disservice to our kids with the whole "self esteem" push of the last 15 years or so, where showing up to a competition gets you a ribbon or trophy. The kids feel happy, but it is a false sense of accomplishment...building them up so that when they really fall they are falling from a much higher height...they are unprepared to deal with failure or rejection.
We are building a stronger society by having a few winners,a nd the rest of the participants will emulate those winners. Sure, there will be sore losers, but ideally, those people will then either try harder next time, or they will find something else to try. Either way, they are better for it.
2006-06-21 01:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by LEMME ANSWER THAT! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I have always repudiated the knuckle-dragging pre-verbal mentallity that tries to cast everything in the human condition in sports terms.
Although I believe in the free market and capitalism I have a strong awareness of the limits of these mechanisms. That said -
First of all, it is _not_ a given that there always more losers than winners.
It depends on what situation you are talking about. If there is a political conflict resolutions have been arrived at that benefit the majority of people.
If you are speaking of economics yes, for any given transaction there will generally be a relatively small group of individuals who benefit the most from success. The success is generally shared although, with workers' benefits falling a spectrum of compensations , benefits and equity. Best rule of thumb - No one gets rich working for someone else,
Your question bears the implication that the losers are preallocated and segregated from the winners permanently on the other side of the velvet rope.
A healthy economy presents more oppurtunities to be one of the winners in some (hopefully high return) transaction.
In fact if you make an intellectually honest observation of the stories of individuals who succeed in all areas of life, often in the face of the greatest challenges you see the importance of persistence and determination. Right off 90% of all business start-ups will fail. There are no guarantees despite what a comfortable life in a developed country might lead you to believe. Success will not fall in your lap. Democracy does not promise prosperity, security, justice and all those good things. It gives you the system by which all people have access to the playing field. It is up to the individual to rise or fall based on their merits.
To be clear, I acknowledge and condemn the presence of systematically greater challenges burdening whole sections of the population by virtue of race or status.
2006-06-21 01:58:29 · answer #3 · answered by morpheuszephyr 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi!!
I think we are building a society in which there are losers and winners, too. In every contest there are just a few winners and the rest all are losers. This kind of mentality gets people working, because everybody could be a winner. It just takes a lot of work. This society encourages hard work and commitment to your job, and also cultivates the spirit of "I wanna be the best and I'll do my best to get there".
People are taught that only sacrificing something will get them where they wish for : career - familly.
Why it is good to have losers and winners? Maybe because we can't be all winners and if we are sometimes the losers, we get the spirit that we may become the winners in another competition. It determines us to do our best.
2006-06-21 01:52:42 · answer #4 · answered by another_angel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The one that comes in second is only the first looser. Someone must loose, even if it is all that loose. Competitiveness is not a bad thing, it has brought about many good and wonderful out comes and inventions.
Anyone should feel a sense of pride for doing the best they can do, and we should praise and encourage everyone for doing their best. At the same time we should understand and learn to accept that there maybe others that can and will at times do things better or faster than ourselves. Teach that finishing first is not a measure of success, but that it is doing ones best that counts most.
2006-06-30 16:47:40 · answer #5 · answered by Jeri 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this keeps the competition going on. once they lose i believe that people keep working, because of relatively negative motives such greediness - envy and so, also neutral motives such as disappointment - sadness, as well as positive motives such as the probability that they will be accepted by the society. Thus, i can conclude that by giving the chance to win only to what so called winner, we are building a society in which we would love to be accepted as a member one day.
Moreover, this building process may be taking place due to the very efforts of merchants who would always love us to buy, consume and make him richer. I mean, they manipulate us so we appreciate those who win, and easily forget about those who have lost, in the long term this makes us get used to consuming more and more (i hope i could explain the relation) this could be same with movie awards, as well as it could be with our school tests..
2006-07-01 08:35:07 · answer #6 · answered by apprentice_dgr33 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A realistic one. There are more losers than winners in life - But you can make the most of life by using your abilites and working hard. Nothing comes for free
2006-06-21 01:36:45 · answer #7 · answered by Perkins 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Survival of the fittest, its part of nature. Wait and see what happens when the world runs out of food and see how all the people that were taught "everybody is a winner" will fare.
2006-06-21 01:37:42 · answer #8 · answered by Hawk996 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, winners are praised for their achievments.
but why would you feel happy when someone you do not even know acknowledges your achievments.
work for yourself and be happy with what you do yourself and who ever is around you that loves you.
'what society are we building if people beleived that paying attention to the material rewards that winning offers is fundamental'
2006-06-21 06:40:49 · answer #9 · answered by que pasa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The type of society where hard work, doing your best, and striving for more can bring you to the realization that you can accomplish more than you think you can when you are challenged. What better way to develop self respect! "I think I can' I think I can..."
2006-06-21 02:11:52 · answer #10 · answered by shellb7088 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋