No, it doesn't. Not all reflexes and instincts are beneficial. They just are what they are. The vomiting reflex is not beneficial when you're standing onstage and you're really nervous. It's a side effect of an imprecise reflex that happens to be beneficial in a restricted set of circumstances.

Ruthless Logic has claimed numerous times that it is, though.

Well yes I was under the assumption that we'd already figured out self interest is restricted to conscious process.

As for the objective thing, its only important that the bias is objective in survival.

I would think conscious and unconscious survival affect the resultant, but are two different components.

Oh, come on Paul; you think any of us are doing much more than blathering? Stick around, the thread is finally getting informative.

Much appreciated -- seriously.

That is not self-interest -- it's just a mechanism. There is plenty of empirical evidence about the nature of that mechanism -- nerve impulses, neurotransmission, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, ATP, actin and myosin, etc. But where is the empirical evidence that this is self-interest (a value judgement) rather than just a mechanism?

I think the exercise you need to consider here is the opposite scenario.

Can someone do harm to himself? If you pick up a gun and shoot yourself in the gonads (remembering that you believe that our main human imperative is to reproduce), have you done yourself harm? Not by your argument -- by your argument you've empirically fulfilled self-interest. Or if you think that reproduction supercedes judgements about self-interest, what about someone who has already reproduced going out on a killing spree. Is that fulfillment of self-interest?

Come on, are you willing to assign this complex interaction of physical and cognitive interplay as some mundane mechanism

The ability for Human Beings to provide dynamic interference within their natural world clearly reflects an inherent multitude of latitudes that can only be available to self-indulging creatures.

My answer to your 2ND part question is yes, yes, and yes. The wake of Self-Interested acts are completely indifferent to YOUR interpretation of the acts, because the pursuit and execution of self-interest can NEVER transcend the self-interested individual, because we are completely self-contained units consisting of self-interested consumption.

Not mundane -- it's an extraordinarily ornate and complicated mechanism.

But what separates us helping an old lady cross the street from a brain-damaged farm chicken doing the same thing is that we self-consciously choose to do that. Going through the motions is the mechanical part. It's the judgement by which we choose those motions that makes us human -- and that allows us to justify an activity based on (among other things) generosity.

Ok. I think we're making progress here. It's clear that you're arguing that self-interest is part of the mechanics of doing anything at all, or of what Boagie has chosen to term 'will'. And I'm arguing something different -- that it doesn't become an act of altruism at that level anyway.

So it's possible that you and I have somewhat similar takes on this in the end. If we decided to restart the conversation, but agreed not to use terms like 'altruism' and 'self-interest', then we might find that it's more terminology than anything that we've been wrangling over.

Okay, I see where this disconnect is happening. You are seeing the point that self-interest is simply doing anything at all, but just "doing anything" does not rise to the level of an altruistic event. I submit to you that the sequence of self-interest(or doing anything) is simply a linear function that originates in the giver(primary transaction), while the residual potential benefit might end up being potentially consumed by the recipient(secondary transaction). It is this SIMPLE LINEAR FUNCTION that contradicts the strict IDEALISTIC DEFINITION OF ALTRUISM, a definition that says a selfless act is ACTUALLY possible, but in reality it is NOT possible, because an individual MUST ADHERE (natural world constraint) to the linear function of self-interest, no-matter what he or she tries to accomplish, and this has been my point about the Falsity of Altruism.

I think it was Ayn Rand that observed Altruism is rational selfishness. Or a side effect to egoism. When one lives to serve the interest of others therein exists a hero complex of sorts. The ego seeks to be gratified by those it serves in such a capacity. So it's not actually a selfless act, but is rather selfish in nature.
I would quite agree.

I think it was Ayn Rand that observed Altruism is rational selfishness. Or a side effect to egoism. When one lives to serve the interest of others therein exists a hero complex of sorts. The ego seeks to be gratified by those it serves in such a capacity. So it's not actually a selfless act, but is rather selfish in nature.
I would quite agree.

I think it was Ayn Rand that observed Altruism is rational selfishness. Or a side effect to egoism. When one lives to serve the interest of others therein exists a hero complex of sorts. The ego seeks to be gratified by those it serves in such a capacity. So it's not actually a selfless act, but is rather selfish in nature.
I would quite agree.

Unlike other economic models, Capitalism offers the closest model of measurable latitudes (currently) that are contained within the realm of self-interest, consequently offering the greatest "natural" success.

We were a lot more purely capitalistic in the early 20th century, before anti-trust laws, before labor unions, before safety standards, before child labor prohibitions.

Was it better then?

The sequence of self-interest (linear function) individual and the endeavor are COMPLETELY aligned.

That's fair.

But it certainly argues that there isn't a black or white Capitalism vs Socialism dichotomy in the real world. As you know all successful modern economies have some elements of both capitalism and socialism. I mean labor unions are a truly socialist idea, perhaps even communist. But they're the driving force behind advocacy for worker's interests, which in the end creates a better workforce. Having Social Security and Medicare (acknowledging their flaws) means that there is less pressure on the workforce to support elderly parents, so that they're better able to generate capital.