While reading Henry Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, I came across several examples of thinkers conveniently, but constructively (meaning with good intentions), equating one concept with another. The quotes are below.
Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, maintained that an "invisible hand" would distill general economic well-being out of selfish individual economic actions. (p.21)
In The Federalist Papers, Madison argued that, in a large enough republic, the various political "factions" selfishly pursuing their own interests would, by a kind of automatic mechanism, forge a proper domestic harmony. (p.21)
The same principles were applied to international affairs. By pursuing its own selfish interests, each state was presumed to... [guarantee] that freedom of choice for each state assured well-being for all. (p.22)
In foreign policy, Great Britain has always tended to practice a convenient form of ethical egoism: what was good for Great Britain was considered good for the rest of the world as well. (p.598)
The third quote is in reference to balance-of-power politics.
I have a couple of questions about this kind of dogmatic thinking where two different ideas are, potentially incorrectly, equated:
- Is there a term for equating two ideas in this way? I was thinking of Orwell's doublespeak, but that seemed inappropriate since the quoted ideas were thought to be for betterment of life, whereas doublespeak was constructed in the story for perpetuating an authoritarian regime.
- Would you to be able to provide any other examples or references for studying this phenomenon of equating two ideas?
EDIT: while reading over what I wrote, I realized that the first three examples, and possible the fourth too, are not actually equalities, but rather implications. So answers about fallacious implications would be fine.