The notion of cooperation vs competition only works so far, because as soon as an individuals ends are not served by cooperation there is little reason to engage in such endeavors. The intellectualist approach to morals is incapable of overcoming the is-ought problem, even if dressing it up in pseudo-scientiffic language to give it that flavor. Even if there is an evolutionary element towards cooperation that hardly does anything more than describe a state of affairs and then unjustifiably shift towards a value-statement through a sophisticated nonsequitor. I have no desire to impose my values on anyone, simply pointing out that moral opinions are rather meaningless without some way to arbitrate where disagreements exist. Which in some form or fashion is going to come down to coersive force, whether that be ad populem, the "golden" rule(he who has the gold...) or pure and simple might makes right. Without a clear moral authority, morality is a meaningless concept.