I recently took part in an exercise in a government class in which everyone in the class split up into small groups and pretended to belong to one of six countries. The rules were fairly simple (“Risk” or “Settlers Of Catan” style) and were designed to simulate international relations between countries with common interests of trade and security. Interestingly, despite the objective of the game never having been specified, every group assumed—acted upon the notion—that the goal was to amass the greatest number of points for its own country. Each group became super-particularist in its “world” outlook so that it did not attempt to humanize or understand the “other”; rather, personal interests took precedence over the common interest. For the most part, groups were not concerned with developing policies that would promote mutual (though disproportionate) benefits to all of the groups and instead preferred to act toward its own perceived “best interest.”

Furthermore, I found it telling that we all worked toward relative gains as opposed to absolute gains; we attempted to earn more points than other groups instead of focusing on the aggregate gains of all of the countries combined. It seemed that a general sentiment of jealousy and distrust pervaded when it became apparent which groups had the most points. Perhaps the feelings of animosity stemmed from the basic human desire to feel “special” and “better” than others. To count oneself in an aggregate, even if it will make you collectively better off, is in effect is to become “just another country” or, even more disheartening, “just another person.” It is impossible to assert uniqueness from within a system of countries that requires you to subvert your individual desires for the betterment of the whole.

But when we think about our personal goals, do we not desire to be well off, regardless of others’ wellbeing? Must we really be “different” in order to be worth something to ourselves? These are questions worth asking, for if we realize that our actions are merely manifestations of a desire to be “better than,” our life decisions and interpersonal interactions will inevitably be limited and superficial.

It seems logical that ideal happiness (or contentment, as I have heard it called) is entirely self-sufficient, meaning that it exists for its own intrinsic merit. Happiness should be, as Immanuel Kant explains, an end-in-itself—pursued for its positive effect on us and not to be used as a means toward another end. True happiness is not a tool through which one gains respect, and our attainment of it should not require another’s giving it to us. Since our goals are meant to be self-contained, they must be independent of other people’s affirmation.

Being “different” seems to require a “common majority” from which you are separate, making the distinctiveness merely relative to a greater whole. In any case, while it is natural for people to wish to be told that they are special and are worth something, it is necessary to remember that our worth is only relative in terms of our personal, self-motivated desire for virtue.

We should not strive to be better than others, but only to be better than we personally had been a day, or even a moment, prior. If we constantly pursue happiness based on virtue garnered through introspection, then our relative position amongst our peers is irrelevant, for our happiness is absolute in that we rely only on ourselves for its attainment.

Cassel is a member of the class of 2013.