Humans are driven by self interest or not

My opponent has made some valid points regarding my consideration of altruism in my first argument. Yet, My opponent's claim that self-interested individuals will take advantage of altruistic individuals is false. In the context of evolution, There is no doubt that individual altruists have a selective disadvantage compared to individuals who act in the interest of themselves. However, From a selectionist perspective, We must consider the two distinct populations of altruists and self-interested individuals separately. A population consisting of only self-interested individuals has a selective disadvantage when compared to a population of altruistic individuals. Not only will the self-interested population be disconnected, But it will also be more likely to be taken advantage of. Contained within this assessment is the fact that altruistic individuals may observe the self-interested actions of others and may be inclined not to perform actions to benefit them, Thus the differentiation of two groups. The phenomenon of altruism is present in the mainstream theory of Darwinian evolution, And my argument parallels scientific evidence regarding Darwin's theory. My opponent failed to consider the state of the two groups of people and only considered the state of individuals. My opponent brings the example of a baby, The quintessential human, To counter my claim that we always consider the lives of others. There is no doubt that babies can be considered amoral animals when first introduced to the world around them. Freud has characterized babies as animals that only care about themselves, Yet new findings have shown that babies have a rudimentary sense of morality. Babies need certain care because of their fragile health at a young age, And it would be ridiculous for them to sacrifice their life for the effect of not being an annoyance. In this situation, The only way a baby can act is in its own self interests, As it is impossible for babies to act in the interests of others. Others would receive no benefit from a baby attempting to consider their lives. In addition, Significant evidence is present that babies cry more when hearing the cry of another human rather than a cry of their own. This agrees with my previous argument that others cannot be bettered by the altruism of a baby because babies are incapable of acting upon something; they merely react. I nullify my opponent's argument stating that it is a biological necessity to sustain human life for babies to act in self interest, And due to the circumstances, We shall discuss fully developed humans from this point forward. In response to my opponent's claim that the unconscious please we derive form being kind to others is just another example of our action in self-interest, I state that it is our instinct to better the lives of others for the good of the human race. The evolutionary standpoint that was mentioned before certainly has valid territory in this argument. I would argue that through acts of kindness, Unconscious pleasure is simply a consequence, But not a motivating factor. We act for the greater good of the human race, Not in the interests of ourselves, And as a whole, Society benefits from our actions. Regarding my opponent's discussion of wars and their roots: We can often get lost in bureaucratic and governmental aspects of war, But considering individual viewpoints in war is key to this resolution, Notably different from the perspective of evolution. The counterexample I bring to my opponent's argument is the phenomenon of treason. In wars, Most obviously fight for the side that they are a part of. This is due to the fact that they are behaviorally conditioned to fight for their own group, As an act of supposed patriotism. However, Humans who are not completely influenced by media and other biased sources act for what's right. If a human is not influenced by anything concerning the matter at hand, They will make a decision supporting a side, Solely following their moral compass. This same phenomenon can also occur in the form of a traitor, Or someone who commits treason. Someone who has not been influenced as much as the others may make a moral decision, And may decide to betray his/her own group. Humans instinctively fight for what's right, And that's what conflicts boil down to. Soldiers in a war are trying to fight for what's right. Now, The overall effect of this may not reflect the reasoning for their actions, But their intent is set nonetheless. Our moral compass can sometimes be disguised as mere selfishness or greed, But these two disguises hide our true intent as humans: to better the world through the betterment of others.