"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone face

"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces? Why should the only options be self-sacrifice" It seems to me that this line of thinking is ultimately just asking for the removal of choice entirely. If you 'get ahead' without any self-sacrifice then you either managed this solely through an act of wishing or entirely on the backs of others. Is a world without choice preferable? Is it meaningful to ask the question when reality is clearly otherwise?