Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

Lets duel! I agree with PRO's definitions, thus shall not concern myself with them. Lets just get right down to the arguments presented: ========================================================== RE: 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement: ========================================================== The instigator uses the following statement from wikipedia as a means of proving that PE relies on circular reasoning:"If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment." However, this is merely a fallacious means of making an argument concerning PE. Indeed, just as I could use the same kind of argument and have it conclude that the sky is blue. The obvious solution is to use premises that logically follow to a logical conclusion. I shall do this below in syllogism format: Premise 1: All willing conscious actions are performed based on one's "upbringing" and biological influences. Premise 2: One's upbringing and biological influences is what one's conscious/unconscious mind consist of. Premise 3: One basing their actions on their own conscious/unconscious mind is a means of satisfying it (in other words, doing what it wants to do). Conclusion: Therefore, people only willingly perform acts that satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind. And voilï¿½ . . . an argument in favor of PE that doesn't rely on begging the question. NOTE: In case of confusion, we can consider upbringing as being "external influences." Depending on PRO's objection, this rebuttal may need some clarification. ============================================================================ RE: 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD? ============================================================================ Quite simple really. Obviously, the soldier had values which were brought about externally or perhaps even biologically. The soldier sought to appeal to these values which he/she had claimed to be his/her own. Clearly, these values of the soldier meant more to him/her than his/her own life. Nevertheless, it was still self interest, giving that the soldier was acting based off of his/her own values. Essentially, fulfilling his own values equates to mental prosperity, mental well being and happiness. Of course, let us further dismantle that flawed insinuation that self interest cannot possible be the factor at hand when one loses his/her life. Let us say that my very opponent is strapped down into a chair and is given the option of either being burned at the stake or shot in the fore head immediately via shotgun. Now, according to my opponent's logic (or lack of rather), given that death would be a factor regardless, there would be no reason for us to conclude that self interest would be the decisive factor in either condition. However, this is false. My opponent would likely choose the means of death which he perceives as less painful. Of course, if he is a masochist, then it would be quite the opposite. The point being made though is that self interest is easily involved even in matters which concern one's own death. ============== Conclusion ============== I'm inclined to disagree with my opponent. PE is rather conclusive especially if we are to agree with the very first premise which I provided in response to his first argument. Given that I too am short on time, I'll leave my position at that for now . . .