Psychological Egoism

Thanks again to Dino for this debate, and all judges who read/vote on it. I'm going to refute his first round of argumentation, and then address his rebuttals to my case. Rebuttals to PRO's case: PRO argues that "we can trace selfish motive[s] if we look deep enough," because both actions that appear and do not appear to be outwardly selfish are all done for selfish reasons. He contends that giving money to charity or performing volunteer work is done because one wants to feel good or at least avoid feelings of guilt, and therefore, the motive for performing them is selfish. He offers other examples, but they fall for the same reason. PRO's arguments are entirely and necessarily speculative (with the exception of where he spoke about his own self interest). Second, he assumes that because a motive that could arguably be self interested proves that all acts performed are self interested. In arguing that when people give money to charity or do volunteer work, donors and volunteers donate and volunteer to feel good or to avoid the pangs of guilt, he is speculating and therefore his claim is warrantless. Insofar as his claim is warrantless, it must be dismissed by the judge. This is because PRO's reasoning assumes that the mere existence of a conceivable self interested motive is 'the' motive for performing acts which appear to be altruistic. While it is possible that some acts which appear to be altruistic are done for selfish reasons, that does not mean that all altruistic acts are done for selfish reasons and because PRO cannot prove that latter claim, psychological egoism cannot be upheld. Likewise, PRO's example of cross country is not an altruistic act. An individual's motive for participating in an athletic event, for whatever reason, is insufficient ground psychological egoism's truth because it does not show that all human behavior is done for selfish reasons -as he claims. Rebuttals to PRO's Rebuttals to My Case: Feeling Good: PRO extends his unsubstantiated reasoning in rebutting my first contention. He claims, again, that the existence of something that would possibly advance an individual's self interest proves with certainty that all individuals do all things out of their own self interest. But, possibility is not certainty, nor is the possibility of something's being the case sufficient to show that it is the case. And likewise, even if people feel good after doing something good, that does not mean that the reason for their doing the good thing in question was to facilitate their uplifted spirits. PRO's post hoc logic just doesn't add up, because even if someone does feel good after they do something altruistic, once more, does not mean that that person's motive was only to feel good. Once more in arguing that the ebola doctors only treated ebola to "feel good" he is speculating and making a claim for which he has no evidence. Falling on Grenades: Regarding the grenade example, PRO makes an interesting claim: "wanting to help friends" proves self interest. Essentially, PRO argues that to the extent that individuals want to help other people, they are acting selfish because they are satisfying their desires. He's begging the question, once more. But, the objection that a soldiers jumping on a grenade is to advance his own self interest, aside from being tautological, warrantless and speculative, conflates acting out of one's rational best interest with acting to fulfill one's desires because desiring death is diametrically opposed to the advancement of anyone's rational self interest. If the soldier was really acting out of his own self interest, he would have done something to preserve his own life: like jump out of the Humvee or push someone on top of the grenade. (2) Pfc. McGinnis could have just as easily saved himself or pushed someone else on top of the grenade, but he didn't. In that he didn't do that, his actions are demonstrably altruistic. The fact that McGinnes knew he would die means that he must have acted to advance something other than his own welfare, and that he could not have been acting in a way that is self regarding. Science: PRO continues to conflate possibility and certainty, and employ post hoc reasoning to make his point. Once more, PRO offers nothing more than speculative reasons for why the volunteers in Bastion's experiments' continued to volunteer -but what he doesn't realize is that Basion's experiments rule out the self interested motives that psychological egoists conventionally cite as plausible explanations for their behavior. If they only wanted to avoid guilt, they would have quit when Bastion offered them an easy way out or when told that their help was not necessary because others would do it. If they wanted only to appear benevolent, they would have not performed the help when they were told that their work was going to be kept a secret. This is why, as SEP writes, Bastion's work is "very bad news" for psychological egoism; it rules out the psychological egoist's warrantless speculations as possibilities. (2) What This Debate Comes Down To: It is salient to note at this point that for my opponent to make his case, he has to do more than speculate. Rather, he must offer concrete evidence that the sole reason that all people do all things is for self regarding. He cannot lean on the possibility of self interest alone to ground his claim that presupposes certainty. He cannot conflate the satisfying desires and acting in self regarding ways. He cannot refute scientific evidence with mere speculation and no evidence. This is because psychological egoism makes a claim about all of human behavior which cannot be grounded without sufficient evidence. PRO has not offered sufficient evidence, and he has not shown the truth of psychological egoism's claim about human behavior. I, on the other hand, have proven that at least some human activity is done ultimately to advance the welfare of others. If altruistic behavior is behavior which is both not self regarding and done to advance the wellbeing of others, then behavior which exposes to mortal risk or harm those who act to advance the welfare of others must be altruistic. This is because behavior which imperils one's life cannot be said to be self regarding in any meaningful sense. PRO did not refute my standard for evaluating the veracity of altruistic behavior, as such, so it stands. As such, if as a judge you are buying that it is at least more probable than not that the Brantley and Writebol (health care workers fighting ebola in Africa, who contracted ebola when they could have remained safely in the United States) and Pfc. McGinnis (a soldier who fell on a grenade to save the lives of four other men when he could have jumped out of the humvee or pushed someone else on the grenade to save his own life) acted at their own expense to advance others' welfare -and you should be because possibility is not certainty and speculation is not sufficient to show that something is the case- I am winning this debate. That is because I have shown that at least some human behavior is altruistically motivated. As such, psychological egoism is false and the resolution is therefore negated.