Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

Slight format change: I'm running short on time, so I'm just going to directly quote and respond to PRO on each point ========================================================== RE (Round 2): 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement: ========================================================== >>>"The circular reasoning I was referring to is circular because people usually use it that way. The reason PE is circular is because there is no independent empirical evidence that shows everyone acts out of selfish reasons. You argue for PE in another way, by equating it with how we make decisions."<<< It doesn't matter. If circular reasoning cannot be applied to all arguments that favor PE, this point fails. >>>Happiness/welfare is what you PERSONALLY believe to be, not whatever you decide to do.<<< However, individuals willingly act based ON what they personally believe to be, hence this is a moot point. >>>>The interest being what the mind (no need for the conscious and unconscious distinction) favors? Not every decision the mind makes happens under the pretense of satisfying our welfare (self-interest). Secondly, with advances in neurology it get's fishy what you even mean by what the mind favors, or desires. It's been shown in split-brain patients that our behaviors (thus what the mind desires) change drastically in reference to each hemisphere[1].<<< 1) Ultimately, this claim depends on whether or not my opponent's altruism argument succeeds (given that he cited altruism when making this claim in the previous round). However, ladies and gentleman, my opponent has failed to overthrow my argument which proves the value of altruism to still be a value related to self interest as you shall further see in this round. 2) Red Herring fallacy. It doesn't matter on whether or not our mind is complex enough to the point where we cannot always reasonable deduce the exact process which it works through. What we do know that all individuals act based on external/internal influences. This knowledge is good enough to uphold my position (not to mention that PRO conceded to it in the previous round). Given that this point is irrelevant, it is requested that those reading this dismiss the source which PRO had provided and not conclude that he provided any reliable. >>>Once acts in accordance with their mind, but the mind does not always act in accord with one's welfare.<<< Once more, this depends on whether or not my opponent's altruism defense is successful (which, as I show below, it isn't). ============================================================================ RE (Round 2): 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD? ============================================================================ >>>Untrue. There very obviously be a selfish reason, but you haven't shown that all the reasons are necessarily selfish. For example, you haven't ruled out every altruistic reason.<<< On the contrary. Acting based on the premise of altruism is acting based on your own values (the fact that PRO concedes that I've given a reasonable reason as to why the soldier could be considered as acting out of self interest does not bode well for his case given that the very reason I provided precisely suggest that all actions are based on self interest; it suggest that acting based on your own values is a form of acting out of self interest . . . as acting based on your own values translated to you being interested in seeing your values upheld). >>>"As said before, acting in accordance with one's mind (a tautology) does not mean acting in accordance with one's welfare."<<< As I said before, the success of this argument depends on the only premise my opponent provided to favor it. I have already vanquished this premise, hence, his argument falls apart. >>>Again, refer to my argument that acting in accordance with one's mind does not mean acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare." See above. >>>Again, remember that my opponent hasn't shown that every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons. He hasn't conclusively shown that every reason is a selfish one, he only gave an example of what could be one" Again, note that my opponent agreed that the reason which I provided is reasonable yet fails to note that the reason which I provided would be applicable to ANYONE who jumped on the grenade given that acting on the basis of preserving one of your own values is acting for the sake of satisfying self interest. >>>Untrue yet again. My example was to show that while people (like you) explain their actions with a selfish reason, you fail to show that no altruistic reason is possible. You show the possibility of a selfish reason, but you have not excluded the possibility of every altruistic reason.<<< 1) I don't need to (or have ever attempted to) show that no altruistic reason is possible. This is because I proved that acting based on altruism is still acting out of self interest (specifically, an individual who willing behaves altruistically in interested in committing to altruism, hence in interested in preserving his/her values concerning altruism, hence is acting based on satisfying his/her self interest (values fall under self interest and altruism is a value, so . . .) 2) Altruism is described as being "selfless" , hence being devoted to others. I need not explore the specifics of every way one can behave altruistically. I merely approached the concept of altruism alone and demonstrated how an individual who values altruism is still acts based on self interest. =====Conclusion===== Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "psychological egoism is a conclusive empirical doctrine" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following: #1. In round 1, I provided a syllogism in favor of psychological egoism. PRO went about responding to it by first claiming he agreed with but that it was irrelevant on the basis that it didn't prove all actions were ultimately done for one's own welfare. He attempted to establish this by citing altruism, but as I've shown, even if one behaves altruistically, one is still attempting to satisfy their own welfare (self interest) based on the fact that persona values (how an individual lives their life) as well as acting based on them falls under one's self interest. #2. PRO attempted to refute my refutation of his grenade example through pointing out that my refutation doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, but if we keep in mind my argument on altruism being an area of self interest (which was the goal of my refutation) we note that my refutation is sufficient as it does indeed apply to every possibility that concerns altruism. #3. PRO dropped the whole area discussion concerning the matter of values being part of self interest (given that it isn't present during his round 3)(this area can be found under section B in my round 2). This hurt his argument as it easily allows me to claim that satisfying values such as altruism is indeed satisfying self interest. #4. PRO failed to respond to my arguments on the matter of an individual being able to act out of self interest in situations that result in death. He can deny ever having supported that position as much as he likes, but if you'll read all prior arguments on this matter, you'll see how his argument relied on this. Of course, provided you agree with #1 and #2 (which are the only matters which PRO felt the need to address in his conclusion), then you can easily vote CON in good conscience. Thanks for the debate! :D