The repeatedly tested, universally agreed upon definition of natural selection and its effects are anything but circular. The way you presented it indeed was circular. I don't think that represents anything except your level of understanding about the concept.

I get the feeling that you are conflating "genetic success" with personal success. That's sort of like saying roaches are some of the most successful species. I suppose from a biological perspective they are. But I don't think from a reasonable, human moral perspective they would be. I personally am much more impressed by the success of someone, who, say, is honest, is kind, has a sense of humor, qualities I don't know have been observed in roaches...

There is more to science (and to biology), than natural selection. It is the basic foundation of the field that should be well understood before discussing evolution,though. And, the essential processes of natural selection rely on mechanisms that, from a human moral perspective, should be condemned, rather than applauded. This is a major shift in how we usually think about things, a paradigm shift, but if one allows this to sink in, then everything else falls into place.

Am I saying that any positive acts of kindness, cooperation, altruism just spring out of thin air? No, I'm not, though you might be (or you might say they come from supernatural origins, which is pretty much the same claim.)

We can (and do!) study social systems of other primates to see where what (we humans consider to be) positive virtues originate. So, it's not that we as carriers of "selfish" genes are entirely selfish and awful in every way, because we see in the social systems of other animals that there are the seeds of virtue. In short, these seeds of virtue originate because it is to the genetic advantage of social groups to ultimately stay coherent and get along.

It is these kernals of cooperation that we (if we care about doing what is good and right and smart) should focus on and cultivate, rather than on simply repeating crude versions of "genetic success", which, again even a roach can achieve. We can set the bar a little higher than what insects pull off.

Just because we don't like the fact of natural selection doesn't mean that we should deny that its existence. Besides, the truth will win out, whether now or in 200 years. That's because the ways of natural selection are, in the worlds of distinguished 20th c. biologish George C. Williams, "abysymally stupid." We can be smarter than that. (Although we should have been smarter about all this already.) We obviously can harness the tools of love and education to get over our nasty, brutish heritage.

So, even though natural selection certainly has no prior goals, purpose or direction, perhaps we could say that insights gleaned from biology can, after all, give us some goals! We can (and perhaps should be morally compelled) to recognize the inherent tragedy of the world, and address it by trying to improve on the awful suffering rampant in the world around us. That's what I for one would like to try to do.