Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

========================================================== RE (Round 2): 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement: ========================================================== Having seen my argument, PRO has abandoned his initial position that PE uses circular reasoning. He now focuses on the premises which I have used to support it (also note that he states he agrees with them), but attempts to accuse the argument of being subject to the red herring fallacy on the basis that "acting in accordance with your psyche does not mean it can be for your welfare." However, I beg to differ. Let us refer back to PRO's very own interpretation of welfare in terms of this debate: "~The definition of welfare is straight-forward: whatever is in your best personal interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call "happiness"." - TheSkeptic Indeed, whatever is in one's best PERSONAL interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call happiness is deemed as welfare. This is precisely what my argument suggest. If people only willing perform acts which satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind (which is what both my opponent and myself agree to), then we can say they are acting based on their personal interest. The "personal" being the conscious/unconscious mind and the interest being what the conscious/unconscious mind favors. Ergo, my opponent has placed himself in checkmate for agreeing with my syllogism. In response to his example, let us again note that PRO has agreed with my syllogism. If that is the case, he agrees that one acts to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind. If one's conscious/unconscious mind is satisfied through helping others (in other words, altruism), then that is exactly what one is doing. Since acting to satisfy the conscious/unconscious mind is acting out of personal interest, acting altruistically does indeed fall under PE, therefore making PRO's example beneficial to no one's argument but my own. ============================================================================ RE (Round 2): 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? ============================================================================ This part shall now be broken down into three sections given that PRO's rebuttal is broken into three sections. SECTION A: The instigator seems to misunderstand my intent in showing one self interested reason as to why the soldier would jump in the way of an enemy grenade to save his buddies. I provided a single solution for 2 reasons: 1) 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. As you can see in round 1, I gave a perfectly self interested reason. 2) My syllogism indicates that all willing actions are done to satisfy one's conscious/unconscious mind. Answering a seemingly impossible to answer example was merely a means of demonstrating this. I have in fact shown how everyone acts selfishly in this situation with the grenade based on premises which my opponent has actually AGREED to. If people willing act to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind, then that's all there is to confirming PE as a conclusive empirical doctrine. Me providing exactly how a solider in PRO's example is selfish is merely a means of elaborating on the syllogism I had provided. SECTION B: Next, my opponent attempts to dismantle the fact that one acting to fulfill their own values is a means of pursuing mental prosperity (which, as insinuated by PRO, is welfare). 1) 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. Ergo, acting to fulfill one's own values is indeed acting out of one's own welfare (to which has apparently been dubbed mental prosperity). 2) 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. Once more, even if the result is the loss of one's own life, it matters little given that one was willingly acting to satisfy their conscious/unconscious minds (once more, something which both my opponent and myself agree is applicable to all willing actions) , hence was acting out of personal interest, hence making PE very applicable. SECTION C: Finally, PRO states "Notwithstanding, my opponent's example is a closed dilemma - both situations ask for self-interest to be involved since there is only one person involved in the scenario - YOU yourself. Situation X (the grenade one) involved other people - so this allows for the possibility of altruism." In response, I state: It doesn't matter. This is a situation where one ends up dying in the process, yet as I've clearly shown, personal interest is still very much involved. The purpose of PRO's terrorist and soldier example is to show that one cannot act based on their own welfare in situations that deprive them of their own lives. 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. If PRO's only objection is that my example mentions no opportunity for altruism, then we can dismiss his soldier/terrorist analogy on the basis that death does not equate to denial of one's own welfare; if individuals can act out of self interest in situations that result in death, PRO's reasoning is proven false. ============== Conclusion | ============== This debate has already been decided. 1)In agreeing to my syllogism provided in R1, PRO concedes to the legitimacy of psychological egotism. 2) His altruism example merely reestablished my case given that altruistic behavior would still be acting in accordance to one's own values, hence acting out of personal interest. 3) PRO's grenade example simply allowed for me to elaborate on my syllogism which established Psychological egotism 4) In providing no real objection to the self interest scenario I provided at the end of R1, PRO has agreed that one can act out of self interest even in situations that result in death, hence negated both his grenade and terrorist bomber example. And that about sums it up. I now stand ready for round 3.