Every conscious action is intended to produce happiness

---Definition of CONSCIOUS (1) 1 : perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation <conscious of having succeeded> <was conscious that someone was watching> I believe that this is the most fitting definition for concious that invovlves a "Willed action" alongside awarness. Which means we can't have a zombie-like or a hypnotized person used as an example. However, an addict person that does no want to be an addict is questionable. ------Definition of HAPPINESS (2) 1 obsolete : good fortune : prosperity 2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : joy b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience ---The terms are relatively simple. I shall begin my argument, but before that I will post a reminder that the burden of proof resides in my opponent's side. I only need to undermine his arguments, while he needs to prove that every action done by any being consciously is aimed toward bringing happiness and satisfaction. The ideology my opponent needs to prove is called "Psychological egoism". Which is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. Psychological altruism, on the other hand, is the view that sometimes we can have ultimately altruistic motives. (3)This is basically tautology, unnecessary repetition of statements, ideas, or words. Joel Feinberg have demonstrated the circular logic in psychological egoism: "All men desire only satisfaction. " "Satisfaction of what? " "Satisfaction of their desires. " "Their desires for what? " "Their desires for satisfaction. " "Satisfaction of what? " "Their desires. " "For what? " "For satisfaction"—etc. , ad infinitum. This makes the whole theory pointless. That is what it is, a vacuous statement. 1- If A, then B.2- (A-Z) is A.3- (A-Z) Is B A=Desire for happinessB=Action presented to produce happiness(A-Z)=Every single actionThis is not only pointless, but false. Lets say: "All penguins in this room are males"The other guy says: "Actually, all penguins in this room are females"A third guy says: "No you idiots! Every single penguin in this room is both a male and female at the same time! "All statements are true to the exact same degree because there are no penguins to test in this room. Lets go with the famous grenade martyr example: I hereby declare that the soldier shielded his squad from the grenade because he gave his happiness away for his teammates. You may argue that he did so because he could not live happily if he let them die or because he wanted to be a hero, but there is no way to prove that. You are judging based on a standard that is not proven to exist. The (A-Z) argument is equalized to saying: "All actions are actions". You must prove that the actions are in fact aimed to bring satisfaction. You assume that the definition of happiness is meaningless. To apply happiness to the purpose of all actions, you must provide factual evidence for that statement, which is not possible. Even if they were possible, these evidence would be empirical and does not prove an action not motivated by happiness cannot exist. Thus, the resolution is never fulfilled. Therefore, someone who makes a resolution that is opposite to yours have the same validity as your theory/claim. You cannot prove it because there is no evidence at all. Ironically, this is an inductive or an empirical argument, it is well established in philosophy that our sensory data cannot be trusted. (4)Ask yourself, how can you make sure someone is acting for the pursuit of happiness? All I have is a generalization fallacy or an argument from ignorance. Basically, for any counter example you provide, I can provide a counter example that assumes the person is acting against self-interest. We can go on for ad infinitum. I do not claim to be able to refute tautologies. That is impossible. However, Tautologies is also impossible to prove. If an equal burden of proof is taken, that would be a pseudo-debate. However, since you are carrying the burden of proof I predict that impossibility shall collapse on you. I know it is nice to assume that every action is motivated by self-satisfaction, but there is no proof. Every action might be against self-interest as well. Every single action can be rationalized either way. From this point forth, I shall take the position of "Psychological Altruism". I will rationalize every action by assuming that the person have done it for the greater good, if an action is destructive then the person believes the world would be better without what is destroyed, if it is beneficial then it would makes the world or other people's lives better. Since the burden of proof is on you, I only need you to not win. ---To summarize my view on the resolution:1- Your claim is inductive, no amount of testing or examples will prove it. To prove such statement that contains the magical words: "Everything" or "Nothing", you must prove that it is a necessity that applies to all possible actions.2- Your claim is a meaningless circular logic that can not be proved or disproved. You are only assuming that all actions are a certain way while ignoring other possibilities.3- A theory that cannot be disproved or tested is not (social) science at all, thus can be dismissed. Science itself cannot prove theories. I await your argument. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) . http://www.iep.utm.edu...(4) . http://plato.stanford.edu...