The term ‘cooperative virtues’ occupies a revealing fault-line in the depth-psychology corpus, appearing most prominently where scholars interrogate the tension between competitive, results-oriented excellence and the quieter moral qualities — justice, fairness, civic reciprocity — upon which social life depends. Arthur Adkins’ foundational study of Greek values furnishes the most sustained engagement: his argument is that cooperative excellences (dikaiosunē, aidos, and their cognates) historically occupied a subordinate position relative to the ‘competitive’ aretē of the warrior-aristocrat, and that the philosophical project of Plato and, later, Aristotle consisted largely in the effort to elevate these cooperative excellences to the rank of full virtues without abandoning the powerful vocabulary of success and honour that gave Greek moral discourse its force. Damasio and McGilchrist approach the same territory from a neurobiological and phenomenological direction respectively, each arguing that cooperative dispositions — empathy, restraint, mutual aid — are not cultural impositions upon a competitive nature but expressions of deep homeostatic and hemispheric imperatives. The Stoic and Platonic traditions, mediated through the Philokalia, add a further register: cooperative virtues as constitutive of a unified, divinely ordered soul-economy in which no single excellence operates independently. Across these traditions, the central tension is whether cooperative virtues are primary moral goods in their own right or derivative instruments of social utility.