Perhaps the use of the term 'selfishness' is what causes people to have a problem with the premise as selfishness is something people are generally taught is a negative trait. However, I entirely agree that all action is motivated by self interest, whether it is because the action makes you feel good, or because the choice you make is a 'lesser of two evils' choice. I think the only addition I would make to this premise is that people will generally put survival first, and 'happiness' next.

I guess this then leaves the question, 'what is altruism' and 'does altruism exist'? I think it still does but perhaps the goalposts should be moved and altruism relates to the individual's ability to gain pleasure (and therefore generate self interest) in doing good deeds for other people. Accepting that the motive is still self interest, there are people who enjoy doing good deeds for others, and those that don't (and a whole range in between!). Those who can gain pleasure from helping others are altrustic.

It would seem to me very implausible that it could be known for any and all actions, whether you had any details about them or not.

And isn't that the bottom line? If you cannot know, you cannot claim "all actions are X", X being the motivation.

That yes, but even more importantly: in any given situation, we cannot know an individual's motivation. It's not just we cannot know the motivation of everyone in the world, it's that we cannot know the motivation of anyone with absolute certainty.

If I drop a dollar in a salvation army bucket, you could not prove the action was self interested, nor could you absolutely prove the action was selfless.

Because they read too much Ayn Rand.

Basically, the same arguments presented in this thread.

Do you want me to link you back to this thread, or what?

Or are you trying to get me to present egoist arguments? If you want to hear me make them, and then show the error in some popular views, I can. If you just want to see the arguments, click on the first page of the thread and start reading.

The second I think misses the point - if you are the only person alive, what need have you of ethics?

If I drop a dollar in a salvation army bucket, you could not prove the action was self interested, nor could you absolutely prove the action was selfless.

If you believe that you are unnecessarily oversimplyfying the issues. More importantly, even if you are right, so what?

People do hold positions, and those positions have names. you don't object when someone uses the word Randroid. Why do you allow some shorthand and not others?

I have to wonder if you unnecessarily complexify all the issues.

How do you respond when your father tells you to mow the lawn?

Is the lawn real? Is the request good? What is the good action in that situation? Is reducing it to good action oversimplifying? Should I get something to eat first? Or is that being selfish?

ANd of course, there are mystic traditions that say: a man does not give money to a begger because he (wrongly) believes it's in his best interest not to.

What about ethical treatment of animals? And of the planet?

I don't associate with either of the views you mentioned. Do you know enough about me and my views to day I'm this that or the other based on a few statements?
I used the word Randroid, and I did so without refering to anyone in particular.
You can use whatever shorthand you like, but if you say I'm this or that, and I'm not sure that I am, I'll object.

Complexify? Great word!

On a serious note, I might. If you show me how I am unnecessarily complexifying all the issue, I'd at least listen.

The ones I'm familiar with come at least very close to this claim, and I agree with them.

With altruism, we can at least discuss various possibilites for the proper treatment of animals and of the planet.
Isn't that part of egoism failrue, though? That without any other men, morals are useless?

I'm sure I fit many labels. If I think about it, I'm sure I could come up with a few on my own. Most of my reservation about being labelled this or that is that I could be, and most likely am, wrong. .

As for egoism and concern for animals and the planet, sure, I have heard egoist argue that we should moderate our use of resources for pragmatic reasons. But none of these are concerns for animals, or the planet, they are concerns for the sake of the individual. Altruism allows us to discuss what is best for the planet and it's various inhabitants in terms other than 'what is good for me and only me'.

WHat?! You're afraid to join the train of philosophers and scientists who have been wrong from the beginning of time?

Stand alone! Good for you!

moderate our use of resources, hmmm. when the ancient greeks said: Nothing in excess, were they promoting ethics? healthcare policy? or pragmatism? I doubt altruism. maybe eudaimonism, or Nicomachian ethics.

The arguments were not formal (just going back now, I read where an argument's conclusion is called a premise), some better than others, but they are there.

But what is an argument, other than a bunch of assertions put together in a certain way. You have at least one premise, which is an assertion, and a conclusino that is supposed to follow from your premise(s). If the premise(s) are untrue, or seem questionable, they look like assertions, and when the conclusion does not follow, it too looks like an assertion.

Mostly, egoism is based on two notons:
1. psychological egoism, that man cannot act other than in a selfish way, despite his intentions
2. egoism is morally superior to altruism

The first, as we have shown, is nonfalsifiable. The second I think misses the point - if you are the only person alive, what need have you of ethics?

If you ask me what the ancient Greeks were promoting, and then provide names derived from their works, well sure, obviously some promoted such things. But ancient greeks promoted many things, and many of them embraced 'nothing in excess' even if for varied reasons.

Why do you ask?