Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

Dragonfang is a sophist, and merely shouts 'logical fallacy!' or 'no, you're wrong!' at every argument I produce. Furthermore, he seems intent on trying to aggravate me, but I shall be patient... Consequences, for this debate, are the intended consequences. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that until you understand.Now, here is the critical point: I am not conflating happiness with desire explicity, I am saying it is implicit. What you desire the most is what you most approve of. Dragonfang is essentially debating against a misrepresentation of my argument. What I propose is that whatever we desire, we must approve of. Let us take the example of money. He thinks I propose this: 'An individual does not desire money, he desires the happiness it brings' Wrong. What I propose is: 'An individual desires money in itself; however, for him to do this, he must intend to approve of and appreciate money, and so happiness is always implicit'. If happiness is an implicit intention of all behaviour, then I am correct. Premise 1 You accept. Good. I win. Premise 2 Has it escaped your notice that your 'refutations' consist of insisting that we do not desire happiness? W: You cannot desire most what you do not most approve of D: Nope, you can. W: But I have shown that it logically follows... D: No, it's just not true. Your refutation here is furthermore based upon the misrepresentation I outlined above. Premise 3 You must accept that people always choose the most desirable world (conceivable to be brought about by their behaviour), or otherwise they would be doing what they did not desire to, which contradicts the idea that we are in control of conscious behaviour, which contradicts 'conscious behaviour'. Premise 4 Behaviour does not have to satisfy the desires motivating it, but it INTENDS to. Premise 5 "Some actions are intended to produce happiness for others" Yep, and my proposal takes account of this. You will find a person will behave with the intention of bringing other people happiness, but only when that person APPROVES of that intended result, and so intends to find happiness. Does that not make immediate sense to you? "People can intend and preform actions, say sacrifices, that serves other people or goals which undermines their own happiness, they may or may not gain satisfaction, but they don't care about that as they believe that this is the right thing to do, even if they desire something they hate." According to you, people do not control their behaviour, rather they are possessed by some godly power which forces them to act in a certain way. Is this idea logical or coherent, considering that we are discussing behaviour controlled by the individual? If you accept that we act as we most desire to (within the constraints of the situation and the individual's perception) then we act to create the 'state of affairs' we approve the most of. How would it be possible to find something 'the most desirable' yet approve of another possible world more? Premise 6 Wrong. I am saying that whatever they desire, be it self-interest or not, they must approve of it, and so they must intend to derive happiness from it (implicitly). Conclusion We can desire whatever we want, but ultimately we must approve of whatever world is brought about by that behaviour. Tautologies Are you saying that not all ravens are ravens? This is irrelevant anyway. Life Insurance Puzzle More money does not mean more happiness, and it is the individual who decides what is more comforting, not you. Selfishness If 'selfish' is said to describe 'acting according to one's own preference', then I must agree (all humans are selfish); however, I find that definition entirely misleading. If we define 'selfish' as 'uncaring towards the happiness of others', then there is no such issue, and I find this approach far more satisfying. In the world entailed by the initial definition of 'selfish', the 'selfless' soldier who sacrificed himself did so against his will; he felt a powerful compulsion to dive upon the grenade, and no amount of hatred at what he was doing could enable him to resist that compulsion. Consider now what I propose: the soldier decided in a split-second that the lives of his friends were of such great importance to him that he would ensure their survival even if it meant his death. Of course, while that psychology is only one possibility, and that it is possible to think of less admirable reasons for the sacrifice, my definition of 'selfish' is both more pleasing and more accurate. According to me, the selfless person finds the happiness of others of great importance to himself, and intends to derive happiness from his charity; to those who would disagree with the content of my argument a selfless person is someone who acts against his own preferences and intends to derive no happiness from helping others. Not only is the latter view discordant with our understanding of how an individual controls his own behaviour, it even seems to make 'selfless' behaviour unworthy of respect, for charity is grudgingly given. So, I contend that you're the one proposing that human beings do not deserve to be commended for selfless behaviour, not me.