Yes, I agree with that. As to whether the second is psychologically possible - well, I think it probably is. For example, if one is feeling guilty about a past act, one might attempt consciously to boost one's moral credit by doing a good deed that one would not otherwise have done. One could still feel virtuous about this, on account of (a) the objective good one has done, and (b) the self-imposed hardship or effort involved in doing it. (I have probably been guilty of such behaviour myself on occasions!) But I think such cases are the exception rather than the rule.

But knowing what your motive was would certainly take the sheen off it, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would to some extent. But the existence of such cases means that the assertion "All actions are selfish" need not be either obviously false or trivially true. There is room for argument as to what proportion of actions towards others is performed primarily for the purpose of feeling good oneself. Cynics might say all or most; others (including myself) would say that the majority of such actions are performed out of a sense of moral duty, the other's welfare being the primary consideration. Many altruistic acts, after all, have a low 'feelgood' factor compared to the effort or hardship involved.

Good morning Vietnam![time warp]

This is a premise a great many people have difficulty accepting.The premise is that no matter what you chose to do or chose not to do it is still selfish.You reach for a glass of water,there is a rational then for doing so,and that rational is selfish.Someone does something kind and supposedly selfless for another,the rational goes back to what this person believes they themselves are.If the idea they have of themselves is one of a kind and compassionate human being,then they must do this action to maintain the idea they have of themselves,thus it is first selfish.The religious might find this difficult to incorporated or embrace but it is necessarily universal. I don't believe you can find an acception to this premise,you are invited to do so of course.Perhaps you can expand on this theme that would be most welcome as well.Are there any particular examples you would like to explore?

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing only the illusion is the grasp of the ring!

A woman nurturing her child. no matter how you look at it, its about the child.

Elmud,

In order for the mother to care for the child, it must be the mothers will to care for the child, action is the enactment of the will, and will is personal. Will is the formation of intent on the part of a subject, the act then is self-fulfilling, and thus first and foremost selfish= fulfilling ones will. One cannot act but in accordance with ones will. In other words, she wants to care for the child. In the case of child neglect, it is obviously not the will of the mother to look after the child. This however has been beaten to death, and is lost to many due to semantics, thus the unusual length of this thread.

Elmud,

In order for the mother to care for the child, it must be the mothers will to care for the child, action is the enactment of the will, and will is personal. Will is the formation of intent on the part of a subject, the act then is self-fulfilling, and thus first and foremost selfish= fulfilling ones will. One cannot act but in accordance with ones will. In other words, she wants to care for the child. In the case of child neglect, it is obviously not the will of the mother to look after the child. This however has been beaten to death, and is lost to many due to semantics, thus the unusual length of this thread.

I respectfully disagree. I think it is an instinctual thing. But that is a story in itself. thanks for the reply though.

Instinctual or not, how is a mother's sacrifice for her child selfish? She is not depriving her child of anything to which the child is entitled to the child's detriment for her own benefit, is she? So whether it is instinctual seems to have nothing to do with it.

To define "selfish" as "any act of the will", as Boagie tries to do, is to reinvent the term "selfish" entirely. That's simply not what the word means in the English language.

It was many years ago that I read Virtue of Selfishness, so I do not recall the Branden articles, though I do remember him having contributed some articles to the work.

That's interesting: as dogmatic as Rand was, she allowed Branden to implicitly argue against her conception of Objectivism.

That the mother sacrifices means, by definition, that her action was selfless as opposed to selfish.

To define "selfish" as "any act of the will", as Boagie tries to do, is to reinvent the term "selfish" entirely. That's simply not what the word means in the English language.