2006-11-09 18:23:30 · 25 answers · asked by Go For Broke 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Nope. As humans we are motivated by competition. Eliminate that and the society would be lethargic. Lack of rewards or competition lowers the bar.
Take Communism-- it never really worked did it.
Consider this.....would you choose to see a doctor in a country where a doctor makes the same money as the bus driver? Where is the edge in excellence? I can't say that competition is the holy only way. ...but neither is a community sort of society because nothing would ever need to be scaled, achieved, proven, invented or perfected.
Flawed as life can be.....winners and losers is still an efficient way to survive.
Idealism is grand but it usually remains in a persons mind and rarely functional.
2006-11-09 18:38:45 · answer #1 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there were no winners or losers then there would be no pont in compettition. When you think about it, competittion is what drives the world. Without compettition you would never get any better at anything bcause there would be no point if you were not going to win and get some self satifaction. On the other side of this interesting paradox is the feling of equality. if no one was better than anyone else then every one would co exist peacfully and without competition. This would bring even bring an end to wars.
2006-11-10 02:38:35 · answer #2 · answered by soccrdude113 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are no winners or losers. The world is a balance of both. This is because who is a winner or a lose is all up to each individuals perspective. Then since everyone has their own perspective, no one can be 100% defined as a winner or a loser. We are all simply playing our parts. Anyway to lose something, we ultimately gain something equal. To gain something, we have to lose something equal to what we gained.
2006-11-10 02:52:51 · answer #3 · answered by weism 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this question is unanswerable. being better is a form of wining a partial contest (at least). So what you are saying is "would the world be a winner (or at least winning, or a partial winner) without winners and losers?" And, i take it that we want to deny winning universally, and not just at the object level while allowing it at the meta level.
2006-11-10 03:31:14 · answer #4 · answered by markisme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What people would be left?
Also not everyone is created equal and as long as humans exist with freedom there will be winners and losers
2006-11-10 20:21:49 · answer #5 · answered by Mike J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't really be much of a place, with no challenges or reason to try. We need both winners and losers.
2006-11-10 02:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by tankgirl190 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. if there where no winners or losers, human society would crumble. We seem to be geared for a hierarchy, and we determine that hierarchy through some kind of contest
2006-11-10 02:26:55 · answer #7 · answered by mark m 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there are no winnners and loser and we are all equal then we must be living in Cuba or China not sure that would be fair to those of us that want to be winners or those that relish the fact that they are losers
2006-11-10 11:14:58 · answer #8 · answered by Cherry Berry 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have to be losers in order to appreciate the winners. We can't always cherish the sunshine until we've experienced rain.
2006-11-10 02:34:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we need both to balance out the world, plus most people share the balance of being winners and losers it what keeps you humble
2006-11-10 04:55:26 · answer #10 · answered by azmondo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋