One cynic (Montesque?) wrote, "Words were invented by Man to conceal his thoughts". I don't suppose you agree with that, so why would you sanction the use of "selfish" or "self-interested" rather than "motivated"?

"All actions are selfish (self-interested)" is clearly falsifiable. Isn't that how we know it is false?

So it is irrelevant to label an action's selfishness when it is only known by the one who was acting. We can only find the benefits of the action's outcome amongst everyone who the action was effecting. Just trying to sum up 42 pages of thread.

Therefore when we define somebody as perfect, it is only possible for that somebody to be perfect when not having any interactions thus God's perfection is maintained by being excluded 'experientially' from humanity, because if god were physically real it would not have the change to be good or evil, selfless or selfish. God can only be of a benefit when it is a individual perception. That way everybody can look at moral perfection through their own eyes.

I don't 'sanction' the use - I've criticized the use. It was a poor choice of words, at best.



Well, can you prove that some actions are not selfish?

We cannot prove that an action is selfish or selfless - there's simply no evidence that could be presented beyond a claim from the agent.

Being nonfalsifiable, we are forced to reject the theory.

Yes, but we should keep in mind that if we followed Didymos's principles there would be no supposed witches back in the medieval times.

Well if people realised that certainty doesn't establish whether witches even existed (because they obviously don't) people might rationalize the whose siituation instead of burning random people, heck I could get into Joan of Arc.

So it is irrelevant to label an action's selfishness when it is only known by the one who was acting. We can only find the benefits of the action's outcome amongst everyone who the action was effecting. Just trying to sum up 42 pages of thread.

Certainty doesn't establish whether or not a person is a witch. Obviously though there is no such thing, this is just an example.

No the mother is not wrong for calling her son selfish, what a silly question.

As for the phrase 'whose situation' that was a typo. Replace 'whose' with the word 'whole'.

Well I think the answer is based on logic and patterns that create assumptions.
Certainty doesn't establish whether or not a person is a witch.
Does it seem logical for a human to be a witch, or have the ability to perform real magic. Has the person every been a threat before, is there any concrete proof of supernatural abilities displayed by people in the past? You can't be certain about a flaw to the pattern without first having a flaw to the logic.

No the mother is not wrong for calling her son selfish.
The mother is not basing the assumption that her son is selfish only because her son took the slice of cake but also from the fact that kids like cake. It is a tendency for selfishness to occur in this respect. It is logical in this situation.
You can be certain that a pattern is going to continue rather than it subjecting to an anomaly.

You mean that it is not overwhelmingly unlikely that the Navy Seal who gave up his life to save his comrades, was being selfish or self-interested.

In any case, falsifiability does not require that a theory be actually shown to be false. Falsifiability only requires that we can think of, or imagine counter-example which, if they happened, would show the theory to be false. After all, in the lingo, even true theories are supposed to be "falsifiable". Isn't that so? You seem to be confusing the ordinary use of the term, "falsifiable" with the very technical use of the term in philosophy, invented, I think, by Karl Popper.