Patur Aval Assur,
Not necessarily. I am rejecting the way you are explaining altruism, because according to you, altruism is just the best benefit. Hence altruism is really benefitism.
It seems to me that you are rejecting your own definition of the way I explain things, not mine. I hold that benefit has value even if it is not personal. You reject this.
Not in terms of good and bad.
What are your arbitrary definitions of good and bad for the purposes of this debate? Because it would seem that according to your rules, good and bad shouldn’t exist at all.
You have a closed set of assumptions in this discussion that preclude any explanations for established human behaviors, and by your own admission they do not reflect the reality of the world. So what is the purpose of this debate?