Everything that humans do is because of their own self-interest.

What my opponent is espousing is the view called psychological egoism (PE), which "claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. [1]" I will refute his view in a two different ways. I will demonstrate that not only is it an inconclusive empirical theory, since essentially it's a descriptive theory resulting from observations from human behavior, but also that even if it's a valid theory it's vacuous and trivial. The second attack, that PE is vacuous, may be more controversial (in respect to as if this counts as a proper counterargument). The voters can take the second attack as food for thought, but my first argument will undoubtedly act as a clear opposition to the theory. ==================== PE is an inconclusive empirical doctrine ==================== Let's step back and wonder. What reason do we have to believe in PE? There is no empirical evidence to show that all are motivated by self-interest. While it may be the case that we can reflect on past actions and see many of our actions are motivated by self-interest, it does not follow that all actions are motivated by self-interest. For example, a common counterexample to PE is the situation in which a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow comrades. The critic of PE would say that this is an example in which the soldier wanted to save the lives of others or because it was his duty, not self-interest. The supporter of PE, however, would say that perhaps the soldier did so to escape a life of guilt from not saving his fellow soldiers if he hadn't jumped on the grenade, and thus it was an act out of self-interest. The problem with this kind of rebuttal while this is a possible account of some cases, there is no reason or necessary connection to think it covers all cases. Therefore, at best PE can be thought of an inconclusive empirical doctrine, meaning we would have to be "agnostic" about it, or a predominant egoist as I am. ==================== PE is a trivial empirical doctrine ==================== However, some PE supporters (L-M comes to mind) argue for it in another way. They would argue that self-interest is identified by satisfying one's preferences or goals. It would seem quite obvious that all actions are in self-interest, since by this definition acting out with accordance to your intent (which is one of the defining characteristics of action, the others being a goal and arguable physical movement) is guaranteed. Yet, if this is so PE becomes a trivial truth. This means that there can be no observation suited to refute PE - it's simply given by the nature of action. By the way PE is defined, all possible counter-examples have been ruled out - making it certainly contentious as an empirical doctrine. Furthermore, PE is trivial because even though it's meant to show a distinction between something in nature (namely human behavior), it turns out to do nothing. If "self-interested actions" is to be a meaningful class of actions, then there must be a distinction between self-interest acts and non self-interested acts. However, if PE were to mean fulfilling one's intent then all actions are self-interested, meaning it would be REDUNDANT to say "self-interest action". If this is so, then saying "all actions are actions" is logically identical - thus revealing the triviality of PE. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Remember, even if you don't believe the trivial state of PE is a substantive counterargument, my first argument still shows that at best it's an inconclusive empirical doctrine. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...