“This is simply not the case.”
Yes, it is. That’s what’s simple. The fact that you don’t think so is your first and most difficult problem.
“Human beings are capable of seeing and acting in the interest of the collective good, a concept which capitalism by its very nature desperately attempts to erase.”
I will agree with you on the second half of that sentence. As to the first half, however, is flawed for two reasons. 1) The collective good means good for the person as well. By helping others, in particular cases, they are helping themselves. I’ll elaborate further on this presently, as your following statement deals with that concept more directly. 2) Collective “good” by whose standard? Again, what is considered good and bad is subjective, depending on perspective and context. So not only might what is deemed as “good” to some not be such to others, but it could just as well end up as a byproduct of what the person is trying to accomplish. You cannot simply take a made-up concept such as “doing good” or “the right thing” as a natural, fundamental fact. It is not.
“Whereas a truly “selfish” person would act only in their own interest with indifference to others, a person who acts—as you say—in such a way that helps others while simultaneously serving their own self interest could still be upholding the collective good.“
Not true. As complex, intelligent beings capable of abstract and critical thinking, it is not only possible, but common - the rule rather than the exception - for people to make decisions and take actions that assist people beyond themselves in service of themselves, because they are able to realize that it will yield a greater reward for themselves, whether that be tangible or abstract (i.e. monetary gain, or simply feeling good about themselves). These people are acting entirely based on selfish desires - even the desire to help others is purely selfish because it is still based on desire, the person feels good by making others feel good and wants to avoid feeling bad, ergo: self-interest - and the collective good being upheld is a side-effect of their efforts, the natural outcome, but not truly the inciting factor that drove them to action.
“This is especially true if, in such a situation, that person’s “own self interest” is defined as the emotional gratification that comes from helping others (”someone who wanted to feel better about themselves”).”
You’ve really made no point here. Their self-interest, even if it involves helping others, may yield a net positive result for society as a whole, but that is not the driving factor. That’s the motivation they’ve consciously latched onto, but their own personal gratification - or avoidance of negative feelings - is the true drive.
“So while you are mostly correct in what you say, the language you’ve been taught to use tints it with unnecessary cynicism.”
Please do not confuse what you might consider negative language with cynicism. The real cynics in this world are the ones who tell you that everything will be alright.
“If you can find it in your heart to unlearn that, you may find a type of peace that you never realized could exist.”
If thinking and believing in that way is what I’d have to do to find “peace,” then I don’t want to find it. I’d rather face the ugly truth of existing in this world and be depressed and miserable as a result, than be happy and at peace by convincing myself of a lie.
Maybe you can live your life in such a way, and good on you for it. But not me, I have standards.