Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

My opponent enforced the notion that his argument is a confusion between intention and consequences, and an equalization between desire and happiness.Premise 1You either accept this premise, or you deny that conscious actions can be ‘freely-willed’, and that seems like a contradiction.Read carefully. I have already accepted the premise, I am only making it clear that the word "Desire" is vast beyond and one can desire something against his own happiness. Happiness and desire are different words.Premise 2Desirable for the self, which may include considerations of others, for it is ultimately my desires which control my actions, otherwise I am not in control of those actions. Would you not agree?Haha. Knew from the vagueness of the first premise that you were cooking up some fallacies. So you are claiming that desires not made to benefit the self cannot exist. Aaaand, we are back to square one.Again, desires ≠ happiness. Just because someone went to practice doesn't mean he went there lusting for the psychological benefit. If there was any then it is a by product.Premise 3Again, the self, for the reason previously stated. You seem to be inventing an argument there; I did not use that justification. People may be so incredibly lazy that they only bother to think of one possible world, but still, if that is the only world they are considering it must therefore be the most desirable one they thought of. If they thought of a more desirable world, the only reason for not pursuing the action to create that world would be that it was impossible or required too much work (which actually just makes it less desirable, as that world includes much work, which they do not desire), or their desires would not be controlling their actions.You are just confirming my simplification of the argument and stashing the confirmation in a strawman. I did not ask about people picking a possible world, I asked if they are to base their possible world on the one that brings them the most happiness. You seem to assume that there is no motivation but happiness, but you are yet to prove this claim. Do people not decide to to take an action that is against their happiness?Premise 4A conscious action requires a desire behind it, and therefore an intended consequence is always entailed by the action (satisfying the desire).A desire may or may not bring satisfaction to self. That is a result. We are talking about intention.Premise 5I never said we were selfish, because that would mean we do not care about each other. We do; in fact, we may desire their happiness. How does it hinder my happiness to have empathy, exactly? If I lack empathy I cannot bask in the happiness of others.Would I donate to an HIV charity if I believed that people with HIV should be exterminated? Perhaps, but only if there was some other reason to donate, e.g. improving one’s personal image.For my position to be invalidated, you would have to show that it is possible for some to consciously perform an action which they do not desire to do. It’s simply not possible.Then our actions are not intended to produce happiness for self. Some actions are intended to produce happiness for others, this may or may not result in self-happiness. I will quote Niet on this one:Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious. -Friedrich Nietzsche (1)If we are to seek our happiness why do we care about others when this would stands an obstacle to greater happiness? This is contradictory.Also, pretty interesting to challenge me to prove a point considering that the burden of proof is on you. As for your challenge, it is indeed impossible by definition. However, I shall address the topic of this debate. 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. I don't even have to give examples, the idea is logical, it is coherent, therefore it is possible, and that contradicts your resolution.Premise 6They are attempts in that they are attempts to bring about the intended (and desired) consequences. If all conscious actions are motivated by desires then obviously a consequence must be intended – the satisfaction of that desire, as I previously stated. The conclusions sounds unconnected. First of all, actions are not entities, they are acts of will. Now, what you are saying that whenever someone is motivated by his conscious to do something against self interest he is thinking about self interest which is absurd as you said, not because it is hard to imagine, it is because it is contradictory. The closest thing you can get is to ditch the classification of actions on the basis that they can be selfish and altruistic at the same time, but that would still contradict your resolution.By satisfaction you mean fulfillment, you seem to have them confused again. "Satisfaction of desires" may or may not come, a person may not expect at. As previously stated, a person can desire something he hates because it is the right thing to do. Please, don't confuse the intention with the consequences.ConclusionWhat? I shall reiterate: the only consequences I am considering are the intended ones. The real consequences of actions are immaterial to this debate.And one may intend something other than happiness. Like intending to donate, or intend to finish the exam. So yeah, still waiting on you.TautologiesTautologies prove nothing? ‘All ravens are ravens’ proves that the statement ‘Not all ravens are ravens’ is false. If 'All conscious actions intend to produce happiness' is a truism, so be it; my position is validated.It is a rare thing to find someone defending tautology. Seriously, what is this? Pre-school logic? You actually believe begging the question is valid argument to justify a claim? Wow. And that isn't even an example of a circular argument. That is a circular definition that adds nothing new (A red car is red) (2), and a self-refuting statement. Really? Using semantics on your claim and using your claim as an evidence? You can't assume something is true, you have to PROVE it. If that is your position then so be it.A: I am con, therefore I win the debate.B: Why should you win the debate?A: Duh! Because I am con.B: Why are you con?A: Because I am the winner, whats up with the stupid questions?Guess I won the debate.http://www.youtube.com...Egoism vs. AltruismI will spare it for character space since it is simply a distorted definition of desire once again.Life Insurance PuzzleI would hope that the average individual would choose the second option. Why do you ask?That is a concession. Why wouldn't anyone seek their happiness, which is more money + more comfort? That is a concession that other motivations exists.(1) http://www.infidels.org...(2) http://www.philosophypages.com...