Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

I shall begin my rebuttul. I need to undermine that all concious actions are intended to bring happiness.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 BenthamI disagree. There are other motivations like duty for example. Receiving pleasure from many activities by-product does not imply pleasure is the motivation for these activities.1. Conscious actions are motivated by desires.True, but they depend on the interruptions as one can go against his self-benefit or the desires the person really wants for the greater good.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 worldDesirable for who? For self or others? That is the crucial question. Thus, it begs the question as it requires as much evidence as the conclusion.3. 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 perceivesAgain, desirable for who? You need to prove that statement. Does a person plan and ponder about the results consciously? True, it can apply for probably any action we can think of, but that is affirming the consequence.1- To produce happiness for one's self an action must be made.2- Actions are made.3- Therefore, they are to produce happiness to one's self.Also, you are confusing the consequence with the intention. Just because obeying the law can bring self interest doesn't mean we obey it for the intention of our benefit.4. The individual thereby approves most of the intended world than any other the individual can conceive possibleI don't really understand this point. Just because an action changes the world doesn't mean the result is intended or expected.5. 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.Or where others are most content.If you believe that someone wants to gain happiness by bringing happiness to others, that means one's happiness is connected to other's happiness, thus are not selfish.Why did we grow such values that hinder our potential for happiness?Even if an actions may bring happiness, that is not the intention, that is an indirect effect. This debate is about intentions, I could simply argue that some actions bring dissatisfaction.6. Actions attempt to create a more desirable world.Action don't attempt. They do.A person may or may not think of the consequences.7. A more desirable world is one in which the individual is more content.Conclusion: Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness.False as you made a false equivalence between possible consequences and possible desires.To 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] From my understanding, he only refereed to the fulfillment of criteria, not that we feel satisfaction. Also, you didn't deny the existence of tautology. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with tautology, but there is nothing right at all either. Tautology do not prove or disprove anything. Therefore they are simply useless, and arguably a waste of time.The "A, the B" argument is related to meaningless statements.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!Interesting. So you claim that you have proof that every single intention ever is aimed toward happiness with a way to test that?Penguins can potentially exist in the room, selfish intentions can potentially exist. You need to prove they exist in all actions. However, empirical evidence does not exist, and induction ain't gonna cut it. Thus, you need to prove it philosophically. They do not have to exist, thus your resolution is false because there are potentially other intentions. That is my point.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.Is that a concession? Not all actions are intended to produce happiness for the individual performing the action? They can be intended to produce happiness for others and happiness for self is by-product?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. You assume that all people are afraid of being attacked by their conscious for not helping people, and that when they decide an action they go: "Oh no! I need to help them! I won't be able to sleep that way!" and ignore "We are all equal, it is the right thing to do".We are talking about the motivation of conscious action. Either way, it is impossible to disprove an action that does not have happiness in mind happened, unless you prove such an action is impossible to exist.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.That is the result of a an action. That doesn't mean they are motivated by lust for happiness.Let me give you a puzzle: (1)Lets say a man have to pay 25$ for a life insurance policy every month. Lets argue he can't leave his family high and dry if he dies. Then lets assume there is a pill that can give you comfort and happiness equal or better than what you would get from paying the insurance. What would a normal person do?1- Take the pill and get comfort while saving 25$ per month?2- Pay 25$ per month and get comfort?What do you expect a normal person would do? The first option definitely brings more happiness.(1) http://philochristos.blogspot.ae...