Well, as has already been mentioned unthis thread, to say that all actions are self interested or selfish is to say nothing at all.

Sure, anything we do happens because at some level (whether rational, instinctual, or somewhere in between) we intend it to happen. But beyond that statement it's pure rationalism to argue for self-interest, because we can always find some way or another to make that point.

So for your point about selfishness to have any meaning, it cannot be synonymized with it, otherwise you haven't uses selfishness in a way we all recognize.

jgweed,

Sorry but you miss the point entirely, morality happens after the fact, after the act/reaction, it is an evaluation, a moral evaluation, it has nothing to do with the actual cognitive process.

If one means that an act is judged after the event by the outcome and a moral evaluation then made, then that judgment does always happen after the fact (and can change with the passing of time as we see new events in the chain of causation). Again, one cannot judge an action until it is complete and actual.

True enough in the abstract or theoretical sense, but in practice, we can at least (and do often enough) make such judgments, even if tentatively. We generally understand, in a common sense sort of way, when we have sufficient knowledge to make an evaluation, when we have "given everything its due."
That such moral judgments should be tentative and, like referee's decisions in football subject to further review when challenged, seems a reasonable attitude to take. If we awaited "perfect" knowledge of any occasion or instance, we would find ourselves in a very awkward place in practice.

The idea that Human Beings subjected to the constraints of our Natural World can somehow magically engage in the process of invoking some form of physical or cognitive interference to benefit some other independent Human Being, Without FIRST satisfying their own SELF-INTEREST is carelessly FALSE and needs to be examined with the courage of truth.

manored,

Unfortunately you fall into the same group that wants to make this a question of moral judgement, if I described to you the function of an operating system/engine, would you feel compelled to instruct me in the morality of it? If one does not understand the cognitve process of human action, how can one understand what compassion is, and what it is to commit a compassionate act? What it is to sacrifice to the life of another?
There is time enough after an act is preformed to evaluate it, my point from the start was to understand how that action, any action comes about.

Hi Mr Fight the Power,

What knee jerk responses are you speaking of? As far as I understand it, there is not a willed action/reaction without intent--that would be an oxy moron, what you speak of might be a convulsion of some sort. I probably am misunderstanding you, perhaps you could clearify.

As soon as soldier (A) synapses begin firing within his brain (absolute leading edge of self-interest) that allows him to move his body towards the grenade and consequently finish the physical act of throwing his body onto the grenade clearly reveals the actual sequence that transpires revealing the inherent constraint of satisfying SELF-INTEREST FIRST, before some ancillary (secondary) event or act can be completed.

It is somewhat different than you phenomenology of addressing to the will before all else, but it is along the same lines. He posted:

It seems as though he is referring to the reflexes that drive us to action are all self-interested, since the "synapses... firing within his brain" are the "leading edge of self-interest". If we are to assume these are self-interested we run into the tautology that you are invoking in engaging the will (you define the will as what one wants). These synapses aren't self-interested, however, for reasons I have stated.