Blank out the recommendations of these two philosophers, and you can see that the first philosopher is using strictly prosocial criteria to justify his recommendations; to him, what validates an argument for selfishness is showing that selfishness benefits everyone. The second philosopher appeals to strictly individual and hedonic criteria; to him, what validates an argument for altruism is showing that altruism benefits him as an individual: higher social status or more intense feelings of pleasure.
The selfish argument for selfishness, or the altruistic argument for altruism, is already known to the audience. Plus, it doesn’t sound very clever. And so of course people often go with the new and clever-sounding argument and omit the old and obvious one.
The selfish argument for selfishness, or the altruistic argument for altruism, is already known to the audience. Plus, it doesn’t sound very clever. And so of course people often go with the new and clever-sounding argument and omit the old and obvious one.