Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

On guard! =====Counterarguments===== 1. Circular Reasoning So my opponent attempts to defend PE by using a syllogism he himself creates. Delicious, I shall now attack it. >>>Conclusion: Therefore, people only willingly perform acts that satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind.<<< ----> Assuming your premises are true, which I do agree with, then your conclusion logically follows. However, ladies and gentlemen, this is a red herring. Let's look back at the definition of PE which my opponent has agreed with. PE is the doctrine that all our conscious actions are done ultimately for our OWN WELFARE. Simply acting in accordance with your psyche does not mean it can be for your welfare. For example, what if there is some combination of external influences or genes that makes you act purely altruistically? An altruism gene? This would be acting in a manner that satisfies your conscious/unconscious mind but that does not satisfy PE. Therefore, my opponent's syllogism fails and we are left in the same inconclusive muck. 2. PE can't account for some examples, etc. >>>Essentially, fulfilling his own values equates to mental prosperity, mental well being and happiness.<<< ----> Yes, it is very well conceivable that the soldier jumped on the grenade for purposes of self-interest. However, to give a situation in where person H can act selfishly does NOT mean every other person will act in the same way in the same situation. You have not shown how everyone will necessarily act selfishly in this situation with the grenade, which we will call situation X. Until my opponent can give some evidence for why every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons, then to say all who do so are necessarily acting out of self-interest is fallacious. Secondly, my opponent brings up the idea of acting in accord with ones values. He states that fulfilling one's values equates to mental prosperity. This is not necessarily true: A. Acting in accords with one's values does not necessarily mean you act ultimately for your own welfare. Welfare and personal values have different meanings. In fact, one's values can directly conflict with their personal welfare. Take a terrorist bomber for example. Their values dictate that they should destroy themselves - the ultimate denial of one's welfare - for the sake of their values. >>>Of course, let us further dismantle that flawed insinuation that self interest cannot possible be the factor at hand when one loses his/her life.<<< ----> I never stated such a thing nor intended to imply so. I have stated that there are examples of where altruistic actions are possible. This pertains to the previous argument so I won't go much into it here again. 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 altrusim. =====Conclusoin===== My opponent's argument fails on two accounts. First, he erroneously equates acting in accord with one's external and internal influences as acting for one's welfare. Secondly, he has not shown how altruism cannot exist in Situation X. Simply giving a possible explanation for the soldier's actions (a selfish one) does NOT exclude other explanations that say he acted out of altruism. So until my opponent has somehow shown the other explanations are not possible, PE stands as an inconclusive empirical doctrine.