Every human action is motivated by self interest

Thank you for posting a challenging response, I also agree that this is a very difficult topic to debate over -Philosophical debates are always thought-provoking. Firstly, I must criticize/criticise the point you made about the school children. You say, "Even if the parent would not inflict any harm on the kid for getting him fined , I don't think the kid would feel well . He will feel that he inflicted harm on his parents , something seen as "bad" by the society . In conclusion , the kid would feel bad". My first contradiction about that quote is 'something seen as bad by society' - Society has constantly been changing for thousands of years (Unless you worship 'Zeus' or 'Aphrodite', you've definitely evolved with society) there is very little idea on what is right and wrong in society, in the 21st century. For example, Teenagers would have had A LOT of respect for their elders in the 1900's, now they consider old people 'Boring' or 'Geezers' (Best words to use without cursing), and along with this, the boundary between teens and their parents is literally vanishing. Many teenagers aren't afraid to stand up to their parents anymore, and some parents even feel threatened by their child - so if we apply this is the statement you explained earlier about 'Inflicting harm on his parents, is seen bad by society' , society has changed too much so that 'rule' on inflicting harm on parents is not stable enough. Also, due to each person having a completely different personality and a different psychological structure, Your quote: "They don't really care if their parents get fined or not", this can easily be contradicted. A completely reverse effect to my first paragraph, is possible here. Some Teenager could care about their parent "loads", e.g. My mum is like a sister to me :), and the teen may consider it their duty to make sure their PARENTS WELL-BEING is protected in every way possible and this brings us back to the 'fine'. If a teenager loved his parents to the max. then he/she would go to school to protect his parents from being fined, because he cares about THEM too much and wants to protect THEIR WELL-BEING. Nothing to do with his well-being (in this case). Next, we reach the beggar example (...again). Your point about the religious person helping the beggar, is true and I have no contradiction against that, however when you state "You don't do something a random person tells you to . Only if that someone is an authority or has some sort of influence on you". In that situation before, I wasn't clear about the 'Random person' problem, I was trying to refer to someone that you know e.g. A friend. Consider this: "Your friend just had his/her house nearly 'blown' up and nearly became homeless, if it wasn't for her parents. You and your friend see the beggar and he/she feels sympathetic because she nearly became like the beggar, so she asks YOU to put some money in." You can either A. Not put the money in, upset your friend, then feel guilty and ruin your own well-being, or B. You feel sorry for your friend and realise/realize the trauma she/he went through - so you give the beggar money so your friend doesn't get upset, therefore..caring about HER WELL-BEING. Out of both those situations, people are most likely to choose option B. aren't they? Proving that you can do something for someone else's well-being not yours. Right, now let's come up with a new 'analogy'. Someone has died, it could be your friend, a relative or a family member - naturally you would go to a funeral / cremation. Why? You go to show respect to them, even if they're in heaven people will go to a funeral/cremation and read out special messages, drop flowers on a grave etc. To show they cared about the other persons existence = to show they cared about the dead person's WELL-BEING (and still do by attending the funeral). Finally, this example, will also involve accident/death: Let's say you and another person (complete stranger) have a disease, and there's only 1 medicine left to cure it - you can be incredibly selfish and take the medicine for yourself and let the other person die and suffer in pain > leading to guilt > Showing self-interest when you take the medicine, but no self-interest when you're guilty (the after-effects). Or in the better situation (what most people would do) - you leave the medicine for the complete stranger, and allow him to live because you care about HIS/HER WELL-BEING, you don't consider yours. You made a very good argument, and I can't wait to hear your argument for the final round!