I think “cheaters never win” also applies to “legal cheating”, like in “pay-to-win” mobile games (e.g. Clash Royale), or steroid use in bodybuilding (not professional bodybuilding, but with regards to how your physique is judged in relation to others’ by society in day-to-day life).
In both cases you can even be accepted by society despite admitting to your competitive advantage, and you still won’t feel your endeavour as being on par with someone who has less trophies than you but plays the game better, or someone who is smaller than you but trains and eats better. You will have to put an * above your claims of glory every time the context arises or else a part of you will feel like a fraud.
There's something true about what you're saying from the psychological side, but I disagree with your point overall:
The basic law that you're subject to in reality is the law of identity, but that doesn't mean you're condemned to your biological condition. You can't change the type of being that you are -- that you're a human and not a dog, that you're a male and not a female, that your means of survival is reason and not reflex, etc. Survival, and the whole field of medicine depends on understanding the nature of your being in order to "command it."
Taking steroids is, as such, not cheating. Neither is taking amphetamines to focus. Neither is taking vitamins to fill the gaps in your diet, nor understanding nutrition and eating properly, nor any other application of your mind to the problem of survival. The people who compete in "natural" competitions while on steroids are obviously cheaters seeking the unearned, and my article applies to them. But increasing your efficacy is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that steroids are good, but they're certainly not bad as such.
A mistake I notice people making surprisingly often is the "worship of difficulty." There's nothing admirable about making things needlessly more difficult. You should take every advantage available to you, it's immoral not to. (There's a lot to say on this but it's a good topic to write about so I'll pin it for later)
On the topic of pay-to-win, it's not the same as cheating. That's just the nature of the game. The mechanism for earning is different, but it's still earned. I'd have to think about why that type of game appeals to people, because I hate them, and the fact that Asian cultures like them is certainly interesting.
Given all that, I agree that seeking the unearned, in this case by means of fraud, necessarily imbues the perpetrator with guilt, destroys the ability to experience achievement, and undermines the supposed purpose.
I get your point. That you can’t draw lines in the sand about what’s ok and what isn’t when it comes to human survival because some things make it so easy that it feels like cheating. And come to think of it, the psychological consequences I mentioned do arise but only when the person doing it also thinks they’re doing something wrong. Like a businessman who begrudging drives out competitors because he really does think he’s violating legitimate anti-trust regulations.
This was an insightful article.
I think “cheaters never win” also applies to “legal cheating”, like in “pay-to-win” mobile games (e.g. Clash Royale), or steroid use in bodybuilding (not professional bodybuilding, but with regards to how your physique is judged in relation to others’ by society in day-to-day life).
In both cases you can even be accepted by society despite admitting to your competitive advantage, and you still won’t feel your endeavour as being on par with someone who has less trophies than you but plays the game better, or someone who is smaller than you but trains and eats better. You will have to put an * above your claims of glory every time the context arises or else a part of you will feel like a fraud.
Thanks!
There's something true about what you're saying from the psychological side, but I disagree with your point overall:
The basic law that you're subject to in reality is the law of identity, but that doesn't mean you're condemned to your biological condition. You can't change the type of being that you are -- that you're a human and not a dog, that you're a male and not a female, that your means of survival is reason and not reflex, etc. Survival, and the whole field of medicine depends on understanding the nature of your being in order to "command it."
Taking steroids is, as such, not cheating. Neither is taking amphetamines to focus. Neither is taking vitamins to fill the gaps in your diet, nor understanding nutrition and eating properly, nor any other application of your mind to the problem of survival. The people who compete in "natural" competitions while on steroids are obviously cheaters seeking the unearned, and my article applies to them. But increasing your efficacy is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that steroids are good, but they're certainly not bad as such.
A mistake I notice people making surprisingly often is the "worship of difficulty." There's nothing admirable about making things needlessly more difficult. You should take every advantage available to you, it's immoral not to. (There's a lot to say on this but it's a good topic to write about so I'll pin it for later)
On the topic of pay-to-win, it's not the same as cheating. That's just the nature of the game. The mechanism for earning is different, but it's still earned. I'd have to think about why that type of game appeals to people, because I hate them, and the fact that Asian cultures like them is certainly interesting.
Given all that, I agree that seeking the unearned, in this case by means of fraud, necessarily imbues the perpetrator with guilt, destroys the ability to experience achievement, and undermines the supposed purpose.
That was very well articulated.
I get your point. That you can’t draw lines in the sand about what’s ok and what isn’t when it comes to human survival because some things make it so easy that it feels like cheating. And come to think of it, the psychological consequences I mentioned do arise but only when the person doing it also thinks they’re doing something wrong. Like a businessman who begrudging drives out competitors because he really does think he’s violating legitimate anti-trust regulations.