Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

I accept your definitions for the time being, although I believe that I am permitted to reserve the right to provide a different understanding of those words (within reason), seeing as I'm making the positive argument. Please understand that in the following argument I am always discussing conscious actions.My Argument (in its current, likely ephemeral form)If we ask ‘what motivates an action?’ we must also ask ‘what constitutes motivation?’. Let us hear from Jeremy Bentham:"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." – Jeremy Bentham [1]Broadly, I agree. Motivation comes in the form of a reason to do something or a reason not to do something, and these reasons are formulated into desires which control freely-willed actions (a will being necessary to willed actions). I will attempt to put my argument in formal terms for clarity:1. Conscious actions are motivated by desires.2. Performing an action results in a different world than if a different action had been performed.Ergo, conscious actions attempt to create a more desirable world3. In acting, an individual recognises that the result of the action is intended to produce the most desirable world that could possibly be generated from the options the individual perceives4. The individual thereby approves most of the intended world than any other the individual can conceive possible5. If an individual approves of one world more than another, then that individual is expressing greater contentment, satisfaction and happiness with that preferred world.Ergo, the individual attempts to create a world where he is most content.6. Actions attempt to create a more desirable world.7. A more desirable world is one in which the individual is more content.Conclusion: Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness.I think, or at least I hope, that you will find this argument difficult to refute. It is my understanding that its refutation would consist of proving that an individual would consciously perform an action he does not want to do, which seems paradoxical. The example of a man told to either cut off his finger or die is not confounding: he still has control over his conscious actions, and he chooses to avoid death by cutting off his own finger. Joel FeinbergTo my understanding, Joel Feinberg commits the equivocation fallacy, i.e. he uses one word but two meanings of that word, specifically 'satisfaction'. [2] Satisfaction is being used to refer both to ‘contentment’ as a mental state and ‘fulfilment’ of criteria. Also, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with tautologies, ‘All ravens are ravens’, and all that. [3] You’ve got me with the whole ‘If A, then B’; I really don’t understand. I apologise.Meaningless StatementsI believe all of those statement regarding penguins are false, because they do not describe what is the case. If something describes what is the case, it is true, if not, then it is false. If something fails to attempt to describe what is the case, then it is meaningless (and also false). Saying ‘It is the case that the penguins in this room are male’ is false if there are no penguins in the room, provided that the discussion is framed in reality. Saying ‘Gandalf has a long beard’ is true, because it is understood that Gandalf is a fictional character. ‘It is the case that the objectively existing penguins in this room are male’ – clearly, they fail to objectively exist.‘It is the case that the Gandalf depicted in The Lord of the Rings has a long beard’ – true! [4]The Martyr and InductionNow, I am aware of the problem of induction. Hume proved very satisfactorily that inductive reasoning cannot be relied upon with the certainty. [5] I, however, put forward a deductive explanation of the actions of the martyr, so until that argument is refuted the discussion of induction is irrelevant, and we know that deductive reasoning can justify definite conclusions. [6]Egoism vs. AltriusmIt may seem ridiculous to suggest that the solider who jumped on the grenade is acting in 'self-interest'. Indeed, I do not advocate that humans are purely 'selfish' creatures.Now, when an individual helps another, that one individiual is concerned for the well-being of the other. It is the helper as well as the sufferer who expresses discontent with with the situation of the sufferer, and so we can see that in some sense, it is 'egoistic', as the invidual is personally punished for not helping, and he helps in order to become more content. The reason I have been hesitating in using these terms is that I do not think it shows any lack of altruism. As confusing as statement as that may be, I believe it is easily explained and understood. The atruistic individual shares the discontent of the sufferer through empathy, and so becomes motivated to help in a way that means that they are seeking their own contentment - but their expected happiness gained from helping is entirely predicated upon the happiness of the person they are helping. People are selfish, in that they will only do what (they believe) will bring them the greatest happiness, but through empathy their happiness can be dependent upon their actions bringing happiness to others, and in this way I do not feel I am claiming that all humans are selfish. I am actually claiming that we are such kind beings that the suffering of others can influence us to personally desire their relief.I am unfamiliar with the technical vocabulary of this issue, so please assist me if I have apparently conceded this entire issue or made some other unintentionally outlandish statement though my ignorance. [1] http://www.uri.edu...[2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...[3] http://www.philosophy-index.com...[4] http://lotr.wikia.com...[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...[6] http://www.brown.edu...