Final answer:
Zeder and Smith's ideas about self-interested human behavior are critiqued for lacking moral consideration, while pluralist scholars view group competition as beneficial for democracy, and ethical debates consider innate human value irrespective of rationality.
Step-by-step explanation:
Zeder and Smith are often referenced in discussions surrounding human behavior and its implications in society. Criticisms of their ideas include the position that people do not always behave rationally, as the economics approach might suggest, and that self-interest as a motivation does not imply moral behavior. In contrast, some pluralist scholars, such as David Truman and Robert Dahl, view the competition among diverse interests within society as beneficial for democracy, asserting that all legitimate groups can make themselves heard. Ethical considerations also arise in the debate on personhood and value, with some contending that human worth is innate and not based on rational ability.