In other words, it was the “egoism” which became a strawman by not being allowed to become more reasonable, while its opposite the “altruism” was allowed to become more sane than originally defined.
In a typical discussion, the hypothetical “altruist” is allowed to reflect on their actions, and try to preserve themself (even if only to be able to help more people in the future), while the hypothetical “egoist” is supposed to be completely greedy and short-sighted.
Yeah, that’s the point. To get the answer “egoism”, one defines egoism as enlightened self-interest, and altruism as self-destructive behavior. To get the answer “altruism”, one defines altruism as enlightened pro-social behavior, and egoism as short-sighted greed. Perhaps less extremely than this, but usually from the way these words are defined you understand which one of them is the applause light for the person asking the question.
(I typically meet people for whom “altruism” is the preferred applause light, but of course there are groups which prefer “egoism”.)
Depends on the discussion. Reasonable egoism is practically the definition of “enlightened self-interest”.
Yeah, that’s the point. To get the answer “egoism”, one defines egoism as enlightened self-interest, and altruism as self-destructive behavior. To get the answer “altruism”, one defines altruism as enlightened pro-social behavior, and egoism as short-sighted greed. Perhaps less extremely than this, but usually from the way these words are defined you understand which one of them is the applause light for the person asking the question.
(I typically meet people for whom “altruism” is the preferred applause light, but of course there are groups which prefer “egoism”.)