Abstract question: Is it better to *win*, or to be *right*?

[ChairOne]

I myself can see several scenarios within which the question might arise... sports, politics, society, etc... I'm curious about perspectives here....

Just for one example, I do (ashamedly) recall when I was young, playing soccer, as a fullback, and a striker got thru (not me!) and ran over and tripped her (I know!) - ended up breaking her wrist. That was a situation where I chose *winning* over *right*, in the relevant sense.

But in various, less personal, manifestations, essentially this question pops up here repeatedly. Insofar as it admits of a general response, I'm curious about what that response is...

[BBradley]

1. Right.

I really can't back it up with anything other than: what use is having power if you sell out everything you stand for to get it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. better to be right

because Truth comes out, eventually. History sees events in perspective, and, with the benefit of hindsight, tells what was the right thing to do. Of course, Bush is quoted as saying he didn't care what history thought of him because "we'll all be dead". My fear is the idiot will do something to cause the entire world to die, and a lot sooner than later.

[Crowdance]

3. Integrity above all

Victory has no value if we are not true to ourselves in gaining it.

[ET Awful]

4. I'd rather be right.

Winning isn't really winning if you do the wrong thing to obtain your "victory," it's simply a tainted moment of false glory.

[noamnety]

5. right

By "right" you really mean ethical, yes?

Ethics always trump winning, but ethical choices don't always come in black and white.

[Lexingtonian]

6. Neither

It's best to be declared the winner by default, i.e. the other side just can't measure up.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Same Q as "is it better to be rethuglican or a Progressive"...

Honor.

Honesty.

Integrity.

Sincerity.

Trustworthyness.

Tolerance.

Acceptance.

Accountability.

Caring.

Fairness.

ALL of these beat out mere winning, imo.

And NONE of them represent bushCo & rightwingnuts.

[ChairOne]

9. No, yours is a *specific* version of the question.....

That was one thing my (shaming) soccer example was meant to illustrate.

republican v Progressive - that's "just" a specific example. (I.e., one would have to stretch language to call me (then) a "republican" soccer player).

RecentExample1: Some here have expressed a willingness to give up being "right" on gay marriage, in exchange for, for example, "winning" on universal healthcare. In the large, that's giving up being right, in exchange for winning.

RecentExample2: Some here have have expressed a desire to (take your pick) move-to-the-center/right OR address rural folks' "values issues". This also seems to me to be an attempt to compromise being right, for the goal of winning. As recent events have shown, it's hard to win without rural folks...

However well these example may sit with you, let me make the question more difficult - nominally, at least: are we OK with losing repeatedly, for a long while, so long as we're right?

[LynnTheDem]

10. Winning anything means NOTHING at all unless we have

Honor.

Honesty.

Integrity.

Sincerity.

Trustworthyness.

Tolerance.

Acceptance.

Accountability.

Caring.

Fairness.

I'd rather lose government elections for eternity than lose the above.

That's the only answer I can give. It's how I feel.

[unpossibles]

12. is this truly a good example?

"Some here have expressed a willingness to give up being "right" on gay marriage, in exchange for, for example, "winning" on universal health care. In the large, that's giving up being right, in exchange for winning."

In your example, you assume that having Universal Health care is not right. damn. there's that word again...

[ChairOne]

21. I knew there was a reason I said "However well these examples..."

I knew it!

lol

[unpossibles]

22. sorry - not trying to attack

I get what you're saying too. I always try to go with my heart, with what I feel is right.

[ChairOne]

35. All good...... It's hard to find examples that get unanimous agreement..

For essentially NIMBY reasons...

[punpirate]

8. One would hope...

... that one wins in politics because one is right.

What has complicated this issue in recent decades is that the right wing has been winning, often by skulduggery (after all, Watergate began because of Nixon's overweening desires to win by any means), and the press has become decreasingly aggressive in ferreting out their dirty tricks and voting fraud.

Still, Watergate ought to be the operative lesson with regard to winning and politics. Once one begins to compromise values in order to win, one is already on the cliched slippery slope. Nixon did win his treasured second term, only to be brought down by his own hand, so to speak.

Given the degree to which Clinton was hounded by the right while in office, finally ending in impeachment and Senate trial, what can any non-conservative expect from the right if he or she engaged in Nixonian dirty tricks and illegalities to get elected? Crucifixion on the White House lawn?

Nope, there's no choice but to choose the straightest path, however much winning seems necessary or desirable.

[mikehiggins]

11. Interesting replies

So the consensus seems to be better "right" (correct, ethical, moral, etc) than to "win" (compromise, sell out, lesser of two evils).

In an ideal world, etc., etc., etc.

In this world, "winning" can become more important than some of us being "right" because "losing" can mean disaster for all. There is a list, somewhere, of the thousand or so US servicepeople who have died in Iraq. There is no list of the hundred thousand or so Iraqis who have also died. Their deaths are a consequence of "losing" and all the "moral high ground" in the world will not change that fact.

The world is full of examples like that. The issues are often much starker than "gay rights" vs "medical coverage"; in such cases "winning" is not the best thing, it is the only thing. The right wing knows that, which is why they win.

[prayin4rain]

29. The wheel keeps spinning.

It is easy to point out the bad and say it is happening because the good guys lost. How many lives have been saved because people stuck with their principles? Doing the right thing in the end saves more more lives than trying to win. The problem is "in the end" can seem like a long way away when we are living during a turbulent period. If you use the war as an excuse to believe that winning is more important than doing the right thing, then they have won.

[ChairOne]

32. Wow - scary question....

Cuz it can also go exactly the opposite way:

How many lives have been LOST because people stuck with their principles?

Phew.

[prayin4rain]

37. Yeah that's true especially depending on what principles they stuck

to I guess. But, for arguments sake let's say they stuck to "right" principles. Peace, justice, love all of that. Still, as you point out, many lives have been lost even because of this. But have more been lost or saved? Hey, who the hell knows? I guess a lot depends on how each of us would answer that question.

[ChairOne]

41. lol - still scary, even with the questioned agreement being assumed...

phew.

[Solly Mack]

13. I prefer to base my actions on what's right (ethically, morally)

than to cause harm by winning no matter the price.

But then, I define what is morally and ethically right for me and to me.

[Mend]

14. Darwin would have said, "to win"

if that meant you were the one to survive, ie, 'the fittest". Then your genes would make it for the next generation. I hope that goodness also has a survival value. Otherwise this planet will be left to repukes and cockaroaches...not much biological diversity there.

[rman]

16. except that evolution is not a contest

ie the fastest wins, simply because he's the fastest; within the context of speed, being the fastest equates to being right.
(it's not a matter of either-or; one can both win and be right - one can win because one is right)

[Mend]

18. I think adaptation to survive (evolution) is the only real contest eom

[ChairOne]

23. Wonderful, so be reductionist/nihilistic....

... if that works for you.... Just don't ever complain (either in foro interno or in foro externo) about something being wrong, unfair, unjust, or any such thing. From a *strict* evolutionary vantage point, there is no such thing.

The consequences of which show, for most people, the poverty of thinking that the evolutionary viewpoint is the *only* good one to have...

[seabeyond]

15. and here you still think about that event that you chose win or

right all those years ago. and bet youa re proud of it,. though it is little and you have probably put in its place, it effects who you are. changes your person.

i chose right. doing what is right is the win. universally an energy is created and with a win in hte wrong, hey you have a bushco where everything he touches is contamindated because he received the win in wrong. so all will be wrong with him

right

[ChairOne]

25. I'll take that bet! lol - where do these folks come from...

Sheesh. Was just tryin to give a contrast, in a way that folks could accept, by virtue of me being willing to step up to my own plate.... Sheesh.

EDIT: I certainly didn't intend for my lil soccer story to be braggy - did it come off that way? If anything, it was meant to come off as (self-)critical...

[seabeyond]

34. i think the showing is you own it, have conscience

i can remember in the past things i did, and clearly see the consequence. i dont beat myself up. i have learned that we create. i prefer easy, lol. a conscience helps, lol. can you imagine not having that conscience to clue you in. some people shut it off. i see it how we talk to fat people, smokers, kids on playground, driving a car,.....maybe we are desensitizing. but bush, in your face everything out of his mouth. wow. i have a brother that lies like that, and have run into a couple of these people in recent life.

[ChairOne]

40. Ok, I get ur original post a little bit better now.....

But as a (mostly former) Nietszche reader, I refuse to be down with simply *defining* "win" as being right. (Nietszche specifically critizied certain people for becoming winners simply by virtue of defining "winning" to mean "losing" - lol)

I'm here assuming that, as *concepts*, winning and being right are NOT the same thing. And the conceptual difference may show itself in some cases, but not others.

[mattclearing]

17. Can't you do both?

Call me crazy, but would it be too much to ask to do both?

[ChairOne]

26. It's too much to ask that in *every* case....

Though there are surely those happy cases where both are possible... They truly are the *happy* cases.

But yes, there do exist *sad* cases as well. Take, for example, those few republicans willing to speak out against the elimination of Social Security. (Awkward example, but hopefully you see the idea...)

[SmokingJacket]

19. It would be easy to register as a Repub. and be one of the winners

... wouldn't it?

But who here's going to do it?

I want BOTH.

"Winning" and "being right" are both vague concepts, though. If we can be half right, and win the election, it sure beats losing whole hog.

Sometimes I think certain democrats get totally bound up in "being right" -- purely and unadulteratedly -- and don't care about winning at all -- hence The Nader Syndrome.

It's a careful balancing act. You don't want to sacrifice so much "rightness" that your win means nothing, but you don't want to be right at the total expense of winning either.

[ChairOne]

27. LOL - show me how to "balance" it then....

What are you willing to give up, out of what's right?

[SmokingJacket]

59. If I knew the secret, I'd be a campaign manager!

But I don't.

Some people were opposed to Kerry because he was "in the pockets of corporations."

I don't think it's "right" to be in the pockets of corporations, either. But I'm not going to support a candidate -- say Nader -- who has no chance of winning, either.

All I'm saying is, in most of life, I could not care less about "winning." I live my life according to what I feel is right.

But in a case like an election, I'd rather vote for someone who's imperfect but might actually win, rather than wait around for the perfect RIGHT guy.

And as another poster said -- winning and right are both subjective. You have to think about each situation and make judgements, not make sweeping generalizations.

[jmowreader]

60. I don't think it's a matter of giving up anything

It is a matter of making our opponents want what we want. It's called leadership.

Gay marriage came up, so let's play with that for a little while.

Words create mental pictures. When someone says "marriage," this whole image of a church, a bride in a huge dress accompanied by six women in identical pastel gowns, and a groom in a rented tuxedo accompanied by six ushers in identical rented tuxedos promising God to love, honor, obey, cherish, generate three charming children...followed by a huge reception, a honeymoon, getting carried over the threshold...

We are NOT looking for gay people to have the right to throw a huge fancy-dress party they can't afford for 300 people of whom they might know 30. We are looking for gay people to have the same rights of inheritance straights do, to have the same implied power of attorney straights do, to have the freedom of noncompulsion to testify against their partners in courts of law like straights have. If we need to call it civil union to remove the "marriage" stigma from the equation, so be it. (If you've been here a while you know I think all lawful unions should be performed by judges--after all, it is a legal construct and it's the only one we don't require lawyers to perform. If you can't buy a house without a lawyer's signature on the paperwork, why can you do this far more inclusive transaction without one?)

I have been told that a majority of Americans, even ones who don't approve of "gay marriage," approve of "civil union." If civil union gives one exactly the same rights as marriage, I think we should go after it.

[ChairOne]

61. Rock on. Separate but equal it is.

ESPECIALLY because a "majority off Americans' approve of it.

But that rant is for a different thread I suppose...

Ok - screw it.

Those "mental pictures" that marriage, or any other concept for that matter, conjures up don't come from thin air. More to the point, perhaps, they don't come from god or anything like that. They come from the tradition, the history of the concept.

So we change a concept - so what? It happens all the time - thank god - else we'd all be..... well you get the idea...

Bah - I'm getting sick of trying to get folks to see that separate-but-equal is intrinsically bigoted... Back to the 50s it is then... sigh.....

(And I'm under no illusions - lol - I'm sure y'all are just as sick of me...)

[jmowreader]

67. I'm really going for "equal but equal"

By removing the clergy's ability to perform a legally-binding wedding, and making EVERYONE get a civil union (with the option to solemnize it in a church if desired), this takes the stigma out of civil union--if even fundies have to get civil unions, civil union isn't "the gay marriage."

[ChairOne]

70. Sigh...... once famous and powerful words, lost in the dustbin of history

"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

I'll leave it to anyone who cares to substitue concepts like "gay", etc... in the appropriate places...

Separate = Inherently unequal.
===========

LOL - I now read your post more closely. You've explicity disavowed the "separate" part (and thereby the other side of the equation). I don't recall you doing that before. Kudos.

EDIT: While *you and I* might be ok with the govt "getting out of the marriage business", it won't help solve the problem it was meant to solve. The gaybashers WANT there to be a difference between what straight folks who love (or not!) each other do, and what hell-bound-sodomizers do. Point: by getting out of the marriage business altogether, you're not "giving up" being right in exchange for winning - you're just winning AND being right.

Others who posted were talking about giving up gay marriage, but NOT giving up straight marriage (by implication at least). That's giving up something genuine (equality), in exchange for winning (universal healthcare.

Succintly, you've moved the goalposts in the conversation

[mattclearing]

36. Has it occurred to anyone that winning and right are subjective?

By being right, you always win for yourself. You may not win for everyone else immediately, but in time you are more likely to.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that it has been more concerned with winning than being right for a long time.

Think Howard Dean and Al Gore on the Iraq War: They were obviously right, but a lot of Dems did what they thought was necessary in order to win.

This enabled Bush to attack them for their conflicted support of the Iraq War.

The main point is that if we ever want to win again, we have to start prioritizing being right with ourselves. Republicans are true to themselves, have been for thirty or more years, and are reaping the benefits.

How long until Democrats start standing up for what they believe in consistently enough to win widespread support?

[ChairOne]

47. See my Nietzsche comment.... /eom

(for my feelings about your win-for-me rhetorico-conceptual tactic....)

[txaslftist]

20. Better to be right...

unless its life or death, then sometimes its better to be alive.

[seabeyond]

24. right is winning, ex:

9 year old small frame glasses intellectual and proud of it challenged class bully who always cuts and other kids mad and quiet. edmund, new to the school, stands up to the boys. and then boy pushed him went on his way. edmund starting feeling bad about self

i say what.........you won, you stood up for right, the kids wanted to but didnt. you had to be couragous. that was brave. you won, cause you were right

[ChairOne]

31. In that case, sure. But there do exist *other* cases...

The world is a varied and many-faceted critter, after all...

Although, if one wants to take the view that winning and being right *never* (even by definition, perhaps) conflict, so be it. I was soliciting opinions, not arguing for my own...

[seabeyond]

39. just thinking about it. i thought that isw what you were looking for

i am not declaring myself winner., lol . i let go of the winning and losing a while ago. i was in competitive world wide swimming for two decades. in the twenties i let go of competitive a lot. i get bad, lol lol. whenever i start bragging or getting cocky i lose. so i dont do that.

where i have learned ot find the win is how i did experience. and it boils down to our preceived and created right.

now again, not challenging. just thinking out loud. of have kids, a family of gotta win. this win issue huge and interesting. just a thinkin

[ChairOne]

48. Gotcha! That context helps.... :) /eom

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. be right!

[ihaveaquestion]

30. I like winning - even when I'm wrong.

I know it's childish and a character flaw, but I do get a thrill when I win - whether I'm right or not.

I usually feel guilty later on, though.

[ChairOne]

33. I wish I could say I didn't have that streak in me too.... lol /eom

[sweetheart]

38. What is the dharma?

Following the truth in your heart will always lead you towards the
greater, happier and brighter possibilities. Sometimes this is winning,
and sometimes it is following the rules. Sometimes it is coming out
of the closet, and other times it is looking the other way.

As you say, there are too many variables, and indeed the situation is
continuous, and even, for that matter, it is true right now. If your
life is following your dharma, your personal truth, you are living in
light. There is a feeling that though you might die tomorrow, there
is nothing more you could have done... no regrets.. none.

So what is the dharma? Sometimes it is the dharma to be wrong, to
lose, to win or to be right. Then by awakening, you are better
equipped to know what the dharma is. Books and advise are from the
past and can only guide you to a certain point, ultimately leaving you
stranded on the island of "now".

[ChairOne]

43. Whoa - is that....

... one of those the-tao-is-the-knowledge-that-cannot-be-known kind of things?

[sweetheart]

57. yes it is

I'm saying that your question presumes a false choice, between
right and wrong, between winning and losing, when the more real
choice is what is truth; what is dharma. Perhaps it was the dharma
for you to trip someone and break their wrist, maybe they broke yours
in a past life, and its payback time, beyond your preconception.

Maybe by tripping them, you gained an awakening that injuring another
does not feel good, and that this awakening is the dharma you might
not otherwise have come to. Life is complex, and sometimes appearantly
bad things, or even bad things lead to great things... sometimes
people get in to alcohol and drugs and then drop it and do something
outstanding. "right" could be called "dharma" but it is too narrow
in its english definition, as it is not "wrong" whereas dharma is
both.

[seabeyond]

42. then again we would have to define and limit what the win is....

i am so funny. and some may be irritated. but i had fun. will stop posting in tis thread in case i am being offensive.

[ChairOne]

45. I'm good with your presence....

... and I tried to leave open their respective definitions, because

(a) definitions are only as good as the words used in the definitions, and

(b) even without definitions, I think the *contrast* between the two concepts was reasonably clear - and the contrast was what I was concerned with...

[seabeyond]

51. all interesting

i saw that later and giggled.

on edit, i see you did say abstract question, lol lol allowing brain to roam


:thumbsup:

[ChairOne]

52. doh! are you as drunk as I am/was? LOL /eom

[demwing]

44. Abstrract answer: "Yes"

because the alternative is to either lose or be wrong.

[ChairOne]

49. lol - NICE - the "probability" way of looking at things.....

By that I mean that a lot of times when calculating the probability of an event, it's easier to compute the probability of the *opposite* event, and subtract that from 1 to get the probability you were originally looking for....

[NoStinkinBadges]

46. Win By Being Right.

[ChairOne]

50. When possible, sure. What about all the other times? /eom

[really-looney]

53. In the next few election cycles.......

It is more important to win than to be right. Look what was done with great democratic Majorities and look what has happened since. Go to the middle win enough seats and then we can go back to doing great things

[ChairOne]

54. Way to step up to the plate!

I wish you well before you get raked naked over the coals (so I predict...)

;)

[seabeyond]

56. was that a raking,

down below, wink

[ChairOne]

58. Certainly not as bad as I was imagining.....

I thought his post woulda brought out all of the leftier-than-thous, screaming for his blood... So much for my finger in the wind.... lol

[seabeyond]

55. cant do it by stealing it

surely that is not what you are suggesting. cause that would be the only point we are at. if it is winning at all cost, winning at the game of who could steal the best

repugs have it on us

[American Tragedy]

62. In applied ethics it's rarely as simple or universal as that

Especially in politics. You have to weigh your priorities. Is it worthwhile to stick hard on an issue like gay marriage, if it loses you everything else?

On the other hand, I've always said that people rarely regret having done the right thing, even if it came at significant personal cost. There is no doubt in my mind that George McGovern is secure to this very day with his stand against Vietnam and for progressive values, even if it cost him the White House. I am also certain the Robert Byrd feels fully vindicated in his votes against Patriot II and IWR, despite the fact that it may have clashed with his constituents' leanings.

Incidentally, the same thing happened to me many times when I was playing competitive soccer. About four years ago I was fairly violently shoved from behind, flipped over and broke both bones in my arm. Another time it was my fault: I slide tackled two strikers, who both fell on me and dislocated my shoulder, and screwed up my rotary cuff for life. But seriously, I've no hard feelings whatsoever. It's just a hazard of playing the game.

[ewagner]

63. In Politics

You can't be "right" and do "the right things" unless you win...

therefore, the first mandate is to win so you CAN do good works.

[ChairOne]

64. LOL - #62, meet #63!

[ewagner]

65. D'oh!!!!

That's what I get for not reading ALL the posts!!!!!

[really-looney]

71. That is what I was trying to say....

In the post above. I agree with you , first you win, then you make change. Look what we have been able to in the minority for the past two years. NOTHING.

We had an opportunity to check some of this tide when Senator Jeffords left the Republican Party but Holy Joe Leiberman was afraid to use his Committee as the Republicans did when they were in control of the Senate. Leiberman was too busy running for President to dig to the bottom of the Bush Bullshit.

[0007]

66. 'Tis better to be poor and happy than rich and unhappy.

Only in our competitive society is winning so important. Humans are creative beings and when that creativeness is suppressed we are truly limited.

[ChairOne]

69. Really - it's never been important anywhere else?

Only Americans value, or ever have valued winning?

Wow. Thanks for the fyi.

[LostinVA]

68. You sound like Dr. Phil!!!

He always says, "Is it better to be right or be happy?" in his arrogant, passive-aggressive way when someone scores a valid point he can't deal with. I know this isn't EXACTLY what the OP said, but it gave me a horrible Dr. Phil flashback...