Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

Dragonfang is a sophist, and merely shouts 'logical fallacy!' or 'no, you're wrong!' at every argument I produce. Furthermore, he seems intent on trying to aggravate me, but I shall be patient... Ouch... An Ad Homenim attack. Look, all the pointers toward fallacies merely shows that these were incompetent arguments. You are blaming me for the inadequacy of your arguments. The quantaty is irrelevant, what matters is the legitimacy. Seriously, pointing out the faults of the opposing arguments is the point of debates. Heck, you criticized my counter-arguments just now. Consequences, for this debate, are the intended consequences. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that until you understand.Now, here is the critical point: I am not conflating happiness with desire explicity, I am saying it is implicit. What you desire the most is what you most approve of. Dragonfang is essentially debating against a misrepresentation of my argument. What I propose is that whatever we desire, we must approve of. Let us take the example of money. He thinks I propose this: 'An individual does not desire money, he desires the happiness it brings' Wrong. What I propose is: 'An individual desires money in itself; however, for him to do this, he must intend to approve of and appreciate money, and so happiness is always implicit'. If happiness is an implicit intention of all behaviour, then I am correct.I am getting a bit dizzy from all the switching of the goal post. I mean when you conflate desire and happiness implicitly (Sneakly)... Aren't you still conflating the two terms? It doesn't matter whether it is explicitly or non-explicitly, they are different words with different meanings. Meaning that you need to prove that the desire is always happiness without circular reasoning.I don't see the connection in your premises and conclusion. if anything it is more circular reasoning. You are saying that anything approved of is always approved for the sake of self-happiness, the same stuff we were discussing.Again, wanting something doesn't mean you want happiness as it is very possible to want something that is against self-happiness. Premise 1 You accept. Good. I win.Haha!Circular logic everyone. Premise #1 = Conclusion.Of course, begging the question is not a valid argument. So your argument is ruined from the start. Premise 2 Has it escaped your notice that your 'refutations' consist of insisting that we do not desire happiness? *Cut for character limit, read above*What kind of strawman is that? You are accusing me of doing the opposite of what you are doing. If I recall right, I said that we are able to not desire happiness, like I said from the beginning? People can easily do things based on upholding many other values knowing or not caring that they will be less happy doing a certain decision. Self sacrifice CAN exist? Well, it was your job to prove that it can't.That conversation is funny. Not because I never challenged these statements, because these statements have nothing to do with your resolution. Assuming certain words are equivalent to happiness will not change the meaning of these words.Even if your definitions were somehow found in a weird dictionary, I did not agree to use these definitions. Therefore, I am not entitled to accept them. Premise 3 You must accept that people always choose the most desirable world (conceivable to be brought about by their behaviour), or otherwise they would be doing what they did not desire to, which contradicts the idea that we are in control of conscious behaviour, which contradicts 'conscious behaviour'.Fine, I accept. I desire a world where I am miserable for the price of everyone else being happy. Premise 4 Behaviour does not have to satisfy the desires motivating it, but it INTENDS to.A bit confused here. What if the desire INTENDED to have no chance of bringing happiness to self? Again, I talked about the semantics here, you are equivalating fulfillment with satisfaction. You can fulfil a desire that brings no satisfaction to self. Premise 5 "Some actions are intended to produce happiness for others" Yep, and my proposal takes account of this. You will find a person will behave with the intention of bringing other people happiness, but only when that person APPROVES of that intended result, and so intends to find happiness. Does that not make immediate sense to you?Only if the meaning of approval was changed to happiness for an unknown reason. But even so, it would be contradictory and awkward when someone approves of something that brings him less happiness. "People can intend and preform actions, say sacrifices, that serves other people or goals which undermines their own happiness, they may or may not gain satisfaction, but they don't care about that as they believe that this is the right thing to do, even if they desire something they hate." According to you, people do not control their behaviour, rather they are possessed by some godly power which forces them to act in a certain way. Is this idea logical or coherent, considering that we are discussing behaviour controlled by the individual? If you accept that we act as we most desire to (within the constraints of the situation and the individual's perception) then we act to create the 'state of affairs' we approve the most of. How would it be possible to find something 'the most desirable' yet approve of another possible world more?A bit confused again. Doesn't the word "intend" reek with control and choice? Basically, you are saying that a true sacrifice requires demonic possession or a similar experience, and that we can never desire such dreadful thing that doesn't benefit us.The only thing I am going to say about that is: "Huh?". Premise 6 Wrong. I am saying that whatever they desire, be it self-interest or not, they must approve of it, and so they must intend to derive happiness from it (implicitly).A concession. So we can desire something that does not benefit us, and self evidently, intended for something other than happiness.The assumption that what is approved of brings us happiness is not approved. Conclusion We can desire whatever we want, but ultimately we must approve of whatever world is brought about by that behaviour.And if we desire something that favors other's happiness over self?My opponent did not show that it is impossible to desire something that is against self-happiness. Tautologies Are you saying that not all ravens are ravens? This is irrelevant anyway.That part was the most surprising for me. My opponent did not retract his support for circular reasoning or show why his argument is not circular reasoning. He constructed a strawman and called the whole thing irrelevant.I already said what "All ravens are ravens" is; A circular definition, which can be laughed at in dictionaries.If my opponent's resolution is based on circular reasoning, then the whole thing's invalid in a logical argument. Life Insurance Puzzle More money does not mean more happiness, and it is the individual who decides what is more comforting, not you.An other shrug. Guess what? Not wasting money usually means more happiness. Notice that he did not dismiss the possibility, he tried to cover it up with an informal fallacy.I mean, didn't he say that he'd expect the average individual to take the choice against his resolution?Selfishness*Quote cut for character limit*Or maybe the grenade soldier decided to simply give away his life so others can live an other day and see their families?Selfishness is caring about self profit even if it damages others. it is possible for a sacrifice to be selfish. it is also possible for it not to be selfish, and this part is what is against your resolution. I believe that your resolution is based on ignoring the latter. Thus, it is flawed.The last sentence is exactly my opponent's view. Just because you accuse me of it doesn't mean you disagree with it. On a side note, I disagree with it.