Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence

The US Constitution–what America is founded upon, and what is perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written by men–sets guidelines for our government. The Founding Fathers deemed excellence for the majority so important, that Section 8 of Article 1 states that the duty of Congress is, "to provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." Because the general welfare allows us to know when we have reached our goal, and because cooperation is the superior means of achieving excellence, I stand resolved: that cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence. For clarification, definitions include: Competition: "to compete" –> "strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same." New Oxford American Cooperation: "working together for a common purpose; activity shared for mutual benefit." Dictionary.com, Random House Superior: "greater in quantity or importance; surpassing others in ability" (Merriam-Webster/NOA) Means: "an action by which a result is brought about." New Oxford American Excellence: "possessing good qualities in high degree" Princeton Wordnet We are determining today whether competition or cooperation is the superior means of achieving excellence; my stance is that cooperation is the superior means of achieving excellence for several reasons. This, however, begs the question, what is excellence? Yes, it is "good qualities in high degree," but what is "good" is often relative to a point of view. Excellence for one person may not be excellence for another–as the saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure! What exactly are good qualities, and how can we measure them if they differ from person to person? My standard by which to measure excellence is through General Welfare, defined as "the greatest good, as ordained by precepts of natural law (a body of unchanging moral principles, regarded as a basis for all human conduct), for the greatest number of people." General welfare lets us know when we have reached excellence, like a road sign that lets you know when you have reached the city you are traveling to. Without it, you could keep on driving and miss your goal completely. With the general welfare, we know that excellence has been achieved when the majority benefits. So how exactly is cooperation superior? We can see this in 3 main points. 1: Cooperation focuses on everyone Cooperation, by definition, focuses on working with others, often for a common goal or benefit, and thus allows excellence for the majority, or the general welfare, to be achieved. Competition, on the other hand, inherently focuses on victory and winning, since competition is rivalry for an object or goal–this focuses on the individual. While businesses compete with each other in the market, the resolution asks for the *means* of achieving excellence, and the act of rivalry is not what achieves excellence. Rather, the employees cooperating with each other to create products, the cooperative laws, and the business cooperating with the consumer to create an excellent product so that both will be benefited are the means of achieving excellence. Competition's mindset requires us to rival with or defeat others to achieve excellence, whereas cooperation focuses on everyone, and is thus the best tool that upholds the general welfare, making cooperation superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence. 2: Competition requires cooperation The oppressive and inefficient Communist government is most often thought of in terms of the Soviet Union. Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, pointed out why it is so inefficient: because everything–materials, labor, tools, etc.–is owned by the Communist government–the resources are not exchangeable. A market, however, is by definition a cooperative exchange of goods and services–working together for mutual benefit. Not only do Communist countries lack cooperation, but the government actually competes against the people, and the general welfare is not upheld, excellence is actually harmed. In America, the government–for the most part–cooperates with the will of the people, as that is a government's job. While officials are put into power by competitive elections, we only find that competition to be helpful if the government then cooperates more with the people, and thus excellence for the majority to be upheld. Competition is only good to the extent that it furthers cooperation (cooperation which then leads to excellence). 3: Cooperation stands alone While competition requires cooperation, cooperation can achieve excellence without the aid of competition. In personal relationships and marriages, cooperation is able to achieve excellence without the aid of competition. Competition applied to these situations actually ends up being destructive. Or, in relief groups and emergency relief efforts as were seen following the Haiti earthquakes, aid agencies didn't compete, but rather cooperated with each other to save the most lives–cooperation achieves excellence without competition, and is the superior means. We've seen that cooperation focuses on the majority, whereas competition focuses on victory for the individual. We only find competition to be helpful if it leads us to cooperate, which leads to excellence, and if it is restrained by cooperation, such as in the form of laws. Cooperation achieves excellence on it's own, competition doesn't. Cooperation is the superior means of achieving excellence.