Everything that humans do is because of their own self-interest.

"It seems that he has actually admitted that PE, if self-interest is identified with acting out one's intent, then it's a triviality. Though disappointing of my opponent to do that, it was pretty predictable. If this was a serious philosophical discussion, this submission would make him a laughingstock. However, I realize this is a debate so it would seem that this argument goes to him." Yay. "As of now, it's up to my readers. If you are ardent with keeping rigorous rules, then under this definition of self-interest my opponent wins. However, if you feel one has admitted their argument is trivial then you may vote against him." Just because it is trivial does not mean that it is not true. "At this point, I will simply demonstrate why we must not be content with a trivial version of PE. I will explain that not only is it unfit as an empirical doctrine (which it purports to be), but that it adds nothing to philosophical discussion - it literally is trivial. Of course, I know many people find a trivial truth to still be a truth, and thus my opponent wins. For those who believe that, I have nothing left to say. It would seem that rigors of debate supersedes serious philosophical discussion, so I won't bother to voice any opposition in this context." This debate is not over whether or not is an empirical doctrine. It is about if humans do everything in their own self-interest, which they do. "As shown before, if he aligns self-interest with acting out one's interest, then this is NO different from an action. As discussed in the philosophy of action, an action is commonly thought of having an intent, goal, and bodily movement guided by the user (though the last part is contentious, since this would exclude mental events). As you can see, my opponent's definition of PE results in just calling it an action. Therefore, saying selfish actions is redundant - it merely means action. There is NO substantive difference at all." Selfish does not mean "in one's own self-interest." It means " looking after own desires: concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others." [1] "Sure, my opponent may play around and say "corrupt politician" is redundant as well, but he's obviously missing the point. While it's cliche to believe every politician is corrupt, this is obviously NOT the case. My opponent would have to give a great amount of evidence to show every politician is corrupt - there is bound to be at least one legit one." But there is not one who is not motivated by his self-interests, whatever those may be. "When I mean trivial, I mean it in a technical way - my opponent's version of PE does absolutely empty of factual content. In philosophy, this is known as a tautology. A tautology would normally be acceptable if used in logic, but if it's an empirical doctrine then one can suspect that it's unsuitable. An empirical doctrine that is by definition is unfalsifiable should be thrown away, as argued by Karl Popper and most scientists of today. Therefore, I will extend this type of reasoning into my next argument:" We aren't arguing about whether or not is an empirical doctrine, so it should not be thrown away. "As demonstrated before, my opponent's position by definition has been reduced to saying that the class "self-interested actions" is extensionally isomorphic with the class of actions." Yes. "I will not show why as an empirical doctrine this is unacceptable." I am now completely confused. "First of all, it should be made quite frank that my opponent is supporting PE. His first round and the resolution clearly claim what PE does, and he voices no opposition to my labeling of his position as PE. As such, it should also be recognized that PE is an empirical doctrine, since it purports to make a claim about human behavior." My position advocates the same things as PE, but not as an empirical doctrine, as a fact. unfalsifiable: not capable of being proved false [2] "The problem is that my opponent's version of PE is unfalsifiable. By the way it's defined, there can be no counterexample of an action not motivated by self-interest. If an empirical doctrine is unfalsifiable by definition, then it's unsuitable as an empirical doctrine to start off with." Hence why I'm not arguing for it as an empirical doctrine. That is no reason to believe that it is false. In conclusion, all humans act in self-interest. My opponent never gave any more reason as to why it would be false, but only as to why it is not an empirical doctrine, something I never said I was arguing for. Vote PRO. I thank my opponent for this debate. [1] http://encarta.msn.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...