Selflessness does not Exist

Clarifications/rebuttals: "This is a fair statement, although morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." [1]. Just so we can be clear to a definitive, objective definition." This is a perfectly valid definition, though I feel the need to emphasize how this demonstrates that morality itself is not objective, because it inherently relies upon subjective terms like "right and wrong" or good and bad". "Punishment and laws are not quite relevant to selfless acts, as laws are moral baselines, and selflessness is usually extended and going beyond the baseline, and acting beyond what is required, and expected." Even if no-one would have faulted Autrey for not helping the man, he would have faulted himself. Such is the way morality works on an individual. It's possible he might have even regretted it for the rest of his life. "Since Pro basically concedes that it was a poor objective choice by Autrey concerning himself, this meets the requirements of what being selfless is. He was reducing the possibility of future positive emotion, increasing chance of negative emotion, and reducing the chance of negative emotion for Hollopeter and increasing the chance of positive emotion for Hollopeter. This was selfless in all aspects. As for the last sentence, I don't quite understand what Pro means by this." Not really, though I see the confusion, since I wasn't nearly clear enough. Sorry about that. Even though it was a poor objective choice when analyzed from the outside as we are doing now, it was still the best subjective choice by Autrey in regard to his emotions and logic at the time. Few are the people who objectively optimize their emotions well, but that doesn't mean we aren't all trying to do so. Whatever factors led into it, his overwhelming compulsion to save the man was still the only reason he took action - or could take action - to save the man. I was trying to avoid phrasing it like that, since it just becomes a rather silly tautology at that point. However, that is precisely the point I am trying to convey. The only reason we take action is because we are compelled by that which governs and motivates our actions (emotions). Some of these emotions are triggered in order to help people other than ourselves, but this does not change the fact that we act in order to optimize our emotion to the best of our ability. Our emotions are the lens through which we view the world. Take it away, and we become but shells, motivated to do nothing at all. This can be seen in people with severe depression, who feel hopeless to change their own emotions regardless of any action they may take. "What if one regrets the donation afterwards or doesn't receive conscious emotional benefit from the donation?" This again seems to be your biggest issue, and was one of the major points I wanted to see if I could convey throughout this debate. The actual eventual outcome of the action is entirely irrelevant to the selfishness of the decision. What matters is instead the predicted outcome, which again can be skewed by fluctuations in emotion and logical capability. Nobody has 20-20 foresight, which is why moral guidelines are useful as general rules used to simplify the evaluation. "I believe they can be under certain circumstances, such as acting selflessly because they know it's the right thing to do, not because they will feel "good" about their own actions." My opponent seems to be missing the connection. Something is defined as the right thing to do because it benefits society as a whole. People are willing to help further society as a whole because they know that doing so will indirectly help them as well, as well as the aforementioned emotional response to contributing. These are things most of us are taught pretty early in childhood. This is actually demonstrated pretty well in the case of charity, where each person makes their own determination of exactly how much to give, and at what point the negatives outweigh the benefits. Plenty of people give money to charity, but never does one give away their entire life savings unless they have determined that they no longer need it to be happy. "Because morals, are what are good and right, and shouldn't be effected by the threat or existence of a punishment. Because if they are, then they aren't truly morals. Obviously human error exists, and humans have the ability to be effected, but that doesn't eliminate objective morals and possibility of acting void of consideration of punishment." Firstly, my opponent neglected to mention the other half of this equation, the promise of an eternal reward. Secondly, he still does not seem to realize that "good" and "right" are themselves subjective depending on a specific goal, thereby making any determination of morality necessarily subjective as well. The point I was trying to make about religion was that people often take into consideration this concept of an eternal afterlife when they attempt to optimize their own emotional state. Infinity is often very persuasive, and can even lead people to take their own life. In the worst cases, it has given rise to religious fanaticism, and ruined countless lives in this reality. For such people, their entire focus is still on selfishly optimizing their emotions, but the promise or threat of infinity prompts them to foolishly disregard their interests in the one reality we all know to exist. Outro: The definition of selflessness that you presented at the beginning, "having little or no concern for oneself", is fundamentally impossible due to the nature and purpose of emotion. Humans are physically motivated by their emotions, and seek to maximize their experience. This is not to say that everyone pursues this goal logically or well. Often, it is even the case that people have zero conscious concern for their own well-being, but to say that they are not still subconsciously and indirectly pursuing their own happiness is naive. For example, parents will work themselves to death for their children. "As long as they are happy, I am happy." For them, they perceive any hardship to be worth the happiness they get from their children. This might be true, or it might not be, but the point is that they think it is. We all grieve over the death of friends and family. We do so because we miss them. Because our own lives are not the same without them and the mundane yet unique happiness they used to bring. That, like everything else, is selfish. To deny that this is a part of our nature seems disrespectful to everyone involved. Holding ourselves to a physically impossible ideal that directly contradicts our own nature cannot be good in the long run. I believe that admitting that we help others selfishly does not make the acts we do for others any less noteworthy, but even more so, because through them we acknowledge the importance of everyone in our lives.