Psychological Egoism

I'm going to just get right into it... lol PRO is demonstrably wrong about what impact my arguments had. There is no "middle ground" where PRO tacitly accepted my standard for identifying altruistic behavior and offered nothing other than speculation. His logic is "There is a possibility of an obscure, self interested motive that, however demonstrably improbable, cannot be disproven. Therefore, we cannot know for sure." On the other hand, I have offered a standard to evaluate the examples of altruism I cited, evidence that those examples meet the standard which together make it not only plausible, but probable that the ebola workers and the soldier who fell on the grenade did so for altruistic reasons. So, in no meaningful sense are we "at middle ground." If you as a judge believe that the evidence for the ebola workers and Pfc. McGinnnes's is enough to make it at least more probable that they acted altruistically than not, then I am winning this debate on that point alone. In order to win that point, PRO must prove with certainty that neither Pfc. McGinness who sacrificed his life to save four other people and the two ebola workers that put their lives in mortal danger for the welfare of others did not act with altruism in order for ethical egoism to be true. That is because it's not enough for PRO to try to jump inside Pfc. McGinness's mind and speculate on what he might have thought before he made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the lives of others at his own expense. And, even if he did think about being guilty, if being dead is worse than living with guilt (and it is) then Pfc. McGinness still put others before himself, therefore he acted altruistically, therefore psychological egoism is false. PRO has the higher burden here, because of the nature of his claim, whereas I do not. This is because ethical egoism makes a claim about how all humans act. I, on the other hand, need only to show that it is improbable, given some examples, that all people act in self regarding ways. Said another way, my sole responsibility is to show that some people act to advance others welfare before their own wellbeing. So, PRO's claiming that my standard doesn't "claim certainty" both does not hurt my case, nor does it advance his, for the simple reason that it is not my responsibility to show beyond all possible doubt that they acted altruistically. PRO, on the other hand, must prove beyond all doubt that they didn't. He has not, therefore I have won that point as well. PRO can claim to be "trivially right" but the nature of his claim requires that he "be right beyond doubt." Psychological egoism posits a claim about human nature that categorically precludes even the possibility of altruism, and that kind of claim requires more than just speculation and tautological reasoning -but that's all PRO's offered. When he's not begging the question, he's speculating, and vice versa. In the last round I noted that in order for PRO to prove his claim, he has to do more than speculate. While he must offer concrete evidence that the sole reason that all people do all things is for self regarding, I only have to prevent him from proving that. He cannot lean on the possibility of self interest alone to ground his claim that presupposes certainty. He cannot conflate the satisfying desires and acting in self regarding ways. He cannot refute scientific evidence with mere speculation and no evidence. This is because psychological egoism makes a claim about all of human behavior which cannot be grounded without sufficient evidence. PRO has not offered sufficient evidence, and he has not shown the truth of psychological egoism's claim about human behavior. Once more: I, on the other hand, have proven that at least some human activity is done ultimately to advance the welfare of others. If altruistic behavior is behavior which is both not self regarding and done to advance the wellbeing of others, then behavior which exposes to mortal risk or harm those who act to advance the welfare of others must be altruistic. This is because behavior which imperils one's life cannot be said to be self regarding in any meaningful sense. PRO did not refute my standard for evaluating the veracity of altruistic behavior, as such, so it stands. As such, if as a judge you are buying that it is at least more probable than not that the Brantley and Writebol (health care workers fighting ebola in Africa, who contracted ebola when they could have remained safely in the United States) and Pfc. McGinnis (a soldier who fell on a grenade to save the lives of four other men when he could have jumped out of the humvee or pushed someone else on the grenade to save his own life) acted at their own expense to advance others' welfare -and you should be because possibility is not certainty and speculation is not sufficient to show that something is the case- I am winning this debate. That is because I have shown that at least some human behavior is altruistically motivated. As such, psychological egoism is false and the resolution is therefore negated.