Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the bonus segment for Episode 23 of Think Like a Debater. This is our first post-debate bonus, where we revisit a debate using concepts and methods introduced earlier in the program. Today we will analyze the motion “Should selfish behavior during disasters be condemned?”

I have five things to share with you.

If you listened to the earlier episodes, you may remember an episode in Part Two, on building a case, devoted tothe importance of definitions. In this debate, one definition was especially important: selfishness.

Zhan Qingyun defined selfishness very broadly as the human instinct to pursue benefit and avoid harm. From my position, I certainly did not want to accept that definition. I wanted selfishness to mean benefiting oneself at another’s expense. What is the difference? Consider two examples.

First, people often say that everyone is selfish. If selfishness means pursuing benefit and avoiding harm, that is true. If it means benefiting oneself by harming others, then no, not everyone is selfish.

Second, consider great figures such as Florence Nightingale and Gandhi. Under the harm-others-for-self definition, they were clearly selfless and worthy of respect. But if selfishness means ultimately serving oneself, even they might count as selfish: their public service fulfilled their ideals and realized the values they most wanted to embody.

That is the difference between our two definitions.

Why did her definition seem so dangerous from my perspective? It combined selfishness in the broad sense—everyone instinctively seeks benefit and avoids harm—with a judgment about selfish motivation.

She could then say that no decision is free of selfish purpose, so we cannot condemn any act or person for it without condemning everyone and over-moralizing society. Once selfishness is defined that broadly, of course it cannot be condemned. That is precisely why accepting her definition would make my position impossible.

How could I challenge it? I made two attempts.