Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

=====PE uses circular reasoning===== >>>Having seen my argument, PRO has abandoned his initial position that PE uses circular reasoning.<<< Nope, I haven't. The circular reasoning I was referring to is circular because people usually use it that way. The reason PE is circular is because there is no independent empirical evidence that shows everyone acts out of selfish reasons. You argue for PE in another way, by equating it with how we make decisions. >>>Indeed, whatever is in one's best PERSONAL interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call happiness is deemed as welfare<<< Happiness/welfare is what you PERSONALLY believe to be, not whatever you decide to do. >>>The "personal" being the conscious/unconscious mind and the interest being what the conscious/unconscious mind favors.<<< The interest being what the mind (no need for the conscious and unconscious distinction) favors? Not every decision the mind makes happens under the pretense of satisfying our welfare (self-interest). Secondly, with advances in neurology it get's fishy what you even mean by what the mind favors, or desires. It's been shown in split-brain patients that our behaviors (thus what the mind desires) change drastically in reference to each hemisphere[1]. >>>If that is the case, he agrees that one acts to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind. <<< Once acts in accordance with their mind, but the mind does not always act in accord with one's welfare. =====PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest.===== >>>As indicated by PRO's very own words, there supposedly could not possibly be a self interested reason as to why a solider would jump on a grenade to save his own buddies.<<< Untrue. There very obviously be a selfish reason, but you haven't shown that all the reasons are necessarily selfish. For example, you haven't ruled out every altruistic reason. >>>My syllogism indicates that all willing actions are done to satisfy one's conscious/unconscious mind.<<< As said before, acting in accordance with one's mind (a tautology) does not mean acting in accordance with one's welfare. >>>One's values fall under one's personal interest for it is one's own values which one is personally interested in fulfilling. In other words, this goes back to one satisfying their conscious/unconscious minds when willingly acting.<<< Again, refer to my argument that acting in accordance with one's mind does not mean acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare. >>>As for the terrorist bomber example, this is absolutely no different than my opponent's example of a solider hopping on a ground to save his pals<<< Again, remember that my opponent hasn't shown that every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons. He hasn't conclusively shown that every reason is a selfish one, he only gave an example of what could be one. >>>This example challenges this fallacious insinuation by pitting an individual in situation that denies the individual of his own life, yet allows the individual in the situation to willingly act.>>> Untrue yet again. My example was to show that while people (like you) explain their actions with a selfish reason, you fail to show that no altruistic reason is possible. You show the possibility of a selfish reason, but you have not excluded the possibility of every altruistic reason. =====Conclusion===== My opponent fails to realize that acting in accordance with one's will does not equal acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare/happiness., i.e. self interest. My opponent also fails to necessarily justify every situation (in this case the solder) with selfish reasons. He gave the possibility for one, but has yet to exclude every altruistic one. ---References--- 1. http://nobelprize.org...