You're up for a promotion. There's one slot, two candidates—you and a colleague you genuinely like. You know something about their recent project that could make them look bad if mentioned in the right context. Nothing false, just... strategically shared information. Do you use it?

This uncomfortable scenario captures something we rarely discuss openly: many of life's most meaningful opportunities are zero-sum. Someone wins, someone loses. Your success might directly cause another person's disappointment. How do we navigate these waters without losing ourselves in the process?

Aristotle would tell us that competition itself isn't the problem—it's how we compete that matters. A fair contest has clear rules, equal access to opportunity, and participants who've voluntarily entered the arena. When you apply for a job, you're implicitly agreeing to compete against others who want the same thing. This mutual consent transforms competition from conflict into a shared activity.

The line gets crossed when we exploit advantages that have nothing to do with the actual competition. Using insider information, leveraging personal relationships with decision-makers, or sabotaging others' work—these violate the spirit of fair contest. They're not strategies within the game; they're attempts to break the game itself.

Here's a useful test: would you be comfortable if everyone competing used the same tactic? If your approach only works because others don't stoop to it, you're probably exploiting rather than competing. The philosopher John Rawls called this thinking from behind a 'veil of ignorance'—designing rules you'd accept regardless of your position in the competition.

Takeaway

Fair competition requires tactics you'd accept if everyone used them. If your advantage only works because others won't stoop to it, you've crossed from competing to exploiting.

Victory feels hollow when you can't respect the person who achieved it. This isn't just sentimental thinking—it's practical wisdom about who you're becoming through your choices. Every competitive situation shapes your character. Win through deception repeatedly, and deception becomes your default mode.

The Stoic philosophers had a concept called arete—excellence of character. They argued that external outcomes like winning and losing matter far less than the internal state of acting with integrity. You can lose a competition while winning at being the person you want to be. Conversely, you can win while losing something more important.

This doesn't mean being passive or refusing to compete hard. Competing with full effort and honest tactics is itself a form of respect—for yourself, your competitors, and the activity you're engaged in. The goal is to be someone who, whether they win or lose, can look at themselves clearly and feel aligned with their values.

Takeaway

Competition shapes character. Every tactic you employ becomes easier to use again, gradually forming who you are. The question isn't just 'Will this help me win?' but 'Who am I becoming by competing this way?'

Here's something counterintuitive: many situations that appear zero-sum actually aren't. We often accept competitive framing without questioning it. Two colleagues competing for one promotion might instead propose a restructuring that creates advancement opportunities for both. The energy spent undermining each other could go toward expanding what's possible.

This requires what philosophers call moral imagination—the ability to see beyond the obvious options presented to us. Before accepting that someone must lose for you to win, ask: Is this truly a fixed pie, or have we just assumed it is? Who benefits from framing this as competition rather than collaboration?

Sometimes, of course, the competition is real and unavoidable. But even then, you can compete while maintaining relationships and mutual respect. The person who loses a job to you today might be someone you work alongside tomorrow. Treating competitors as temporary adversaries rather than enemies preserves future possibilities that cutthroat tactics would foreclose.

Takeaway

Before accepting zero-sum framing, question it. Many competitive situations have collaborative alternatives we miss because we've stopped looking. Even genuine competitions don't require making enemies.

Competition isn't inherently corrupting—but it does reveal and shape character. The ethical path through competitive situations involves three moves: ensure the contest is genuinely fair, compete in ways that build rather than erode who you want to be, and stay alert to collaborative alternatives hiding within competitive frames.

Next time you face a situation where winning means someone else loses, pause before strategizing. Ask not just how can I win? but how can I compete in a way I'll respect tomorrow?