Courtesy of Mtashed 5:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y_6g0icbg
I have a question for everyone here. Why exactly, is letting others win, a positively viewed trend in our society? If you let your opponent win, you aren't teaching them anything. You aren't teaching them how to improve and learn from their experience. You aren't helping them at all; save for a brief feeling of accomplishment. Their victory, means nothing.
If this trend is propagated throughout the next generations of humanity, like how this current generation is doing, we could see an increase in entitlement, narcissism and the inability to accept and learn from defeat.
Today's lesson, is simple. Equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. Equality of opportunity however, is perfectly reasonable and should be embraced.
[quote]Today's lesson, is simple. Equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. Equality of opportunity however, is perfectly reasonable and should be embraced.[/quote]
I wouldn't say that you've illustrated "equality of outcome" very well, at least not in a moral sense. There's a distinction to be made.
Voluntarily letting somebody win (when you could have easily defeated them) might be a virtuous thing, depending on the circumstances. It might be senseless and patronizing under other circumstances. However, you're never acting immorally under [i]any[/i] circumstances by voluntarily letting somebody else win.
Using violence (or the threat of violence) to force an equality of outcome is immoral. Coercing somebody into losing so that another person may win is a whole different situation than if one competitor voluntarily threw the match to another.