Everything that humans do is because of their own self-interest.

First I will refute my opponent's comment about the inconclusiveness of PE. I think that "self-interest" is a better example than "welfare" as far as what PE causes people to do. If they believe that something is more important to them than their own welfare, then they will act more to fulfill that interest. "Let's step back and wonder. What reason do we have to believe in PE? There is no empirical evidence to show that all are motivated by self-interest. While it may be the case that we can reflect on past actions and see many of our actions are motivated by self-interest, it does not follow that all actions are motivated by self-interest. " We have every reason to believe that people do things in self-interest. There is no reason to believe that people would do things that are not in their own self-interest. People would do things in their own self-interest because they want to. If they didn't want to, they wouldn't do it. "For example, a common counterexample to PE is the situation in which a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow comrades. The critic of PE would say that this is an example in which the soldier wanted to save the lives of others or because it was his duty, not self-interest. The supporter of PE, however, would say that perhaps the soldier did so to escape a life of guilt from not saving his fellow soldiers if he hadn't jumped on the grenade, and thus it was an act out of self-interest. " If he did it because of it being his duty, then clearly he was interested in doing his duty. At this point, his interest is more for their safety than his own. "The problem with this kind of rebuttal while this is a possible account of some cases, there is no reason or necessary connection to think it covers all cases. Therefore, at best PE can be thought of an inconclusive empirical doctrine, meaning we would have to be "agnostic" about it, or a predominant egoist as I am. " There is great reason to believe that it covers all cases. If he didn't want to do it, he wouldn't have done it. There was nothing actually forcing him to do it. He volunteered. This removes the case that makes some people turn to predominant egoism. I will now move on to the argument that it is trivial. "However, some PE supporters (L-M comes to mind) argue for it in another way. They would argue that self-interest is identified by satisfying one's preferences or goals. It would seem quite obvious that all actions are in self-interest, since by this definition acting out with accordance to your intent (which is one of the defining characteristics of action, the others being a goal and arguable physical movement) is guaranteed. " This seems to be what I am saying. "Yet, if this is so PE becomes a trivial truth. This means that there can be no observation suited to refute PE - it's simply given by the nature of action. By the way PE is defined, all possible counter-examples have been ruled out - making it certainly contentious as an empirical doctrine. " Yes. "Furthermore, PE is trivial because even though it's meant to show a distinction between something in nature (namely human behavior), it turns out to do nothing. If 'self-interested actions' is to be a meaningful class of actions, then there must be a distinction between self-interest acts and non self-interested acts. However, if PE were to mean fulfilling one's intent then all actions are self-interested, meaning it would be REDUNDANT to say 'self-interest action'. " And it is redundant to say "corrupt politician. " Does that make it not true? Of course not. "If this is so, then saying 'all actions are actions' is logically identical - thus revealing the triviality of PE. " If it is trivial, then it is still true. That means nothing. Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that people would do things they didn't want to do. They always have a choice, and choose the choice in their best interest. Quoth Dr. House: "Everything we do is dictated by motive. " . http://housemd-guide.com...