Just digging into Talcott Parsons analysis of some seminal sociological economists. Very impressed by Alfred Marshall's social philosophy. Assuming a harmony of interests and the tendency towards higher purposes in life seems very sensible to me. As against the views of Pareto, of the Hobbesian struggle of nature school.

The pessimistic view is that life is a struggle for survival governed by our worst tendencies, selfishness and greed. The optimistic view is that life is an opportunity for growth and the creation of something wonderful, through the agency of our best tendencies, generosity and cooperation. Undoubtedly, both these views are empirically true. Now the optimist surely believes not only that things have been made better and can be made better, but that they ought to be made better. But I wonder, does the pessimist believe not only that things are governed by our most selfish traits, but also that they ought to be? Surely not.

The moral ought becomes meaningless unless it is aligned with a best outcome. Psychological egoism means that people act egoistically because they are only capable of so doing. In which case the idea of morality itself becomes meaningless, since one can only ever act insofar as one is capable. Ethical egoism however says people ought to act egoistically, because to do so results in what must be, in some sense, a best outcome. The mere fact that both the pessimistic and the optimistic perspective are amply supported by historical and day to day evidence establishes that people can be both selfish and generous. So the question really becomes, ought one to be pessimistic or optimistic, both being equally possible?

Is life a struggle? Yes. And if you believe that is all that it can be, then that is all that it will be for you. But we do rise above this level. The entire edifice of civilization rises above this level. So there is no justification for preferring pessimism to optimism, both being equally possible.