Just wondering boagie, if you would say that there are better/nicer selfish actions? Or all they all equal?

But I know I was very selfish because I wanted to help this stranger. And the more I wanted to help him, the more selfish I was to help him.

What is necessarily selfish about wanting to help a stranger?

The logic used here is the following:
Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent. Therefore all actions are self-beneficial, therefore for an action to be done it must atleast benefit the agent, if not others as well.

Again I reiterate that you are taking the word "selfish" to the extremes.
This theory simply states that any living organism cannot create intention without any benefit to itself, as no willing action (unless you can provide a definite example) does not benefit the agent somehow.

EDIT: As for what is "selfish", or better put self-beneficial, in the above mentioned example: you acted upon your moral code, therefore you helped your self-esteem. Its even apparent that it did, cause if it did not you would not have come here and used it as an example, explicitly stating that it did occur in real life instead of providing another example (i.e. someone else doing something else).

The logic used here is the following:
Any observable voluntary action somehow benefits the agent. Therefore all actions are self-beneficial, therefore for an action to be done it must atleast benefit the agent, if not others as well.

Dexter,

Some very interesting points you make here,if self-interest was not thought of as a negative,would there be as much guilt in the world.The Flip side though is perhaps the psychopath,who has no problem with self-interest,and sees compassion for others as simple weakness,his lack of human emotions tells him of his superiority.

I believe you are right,the model of humanity is just fine the way it is.Perhaps in the interest of a greater humanity and social cohesion in the future,people will choose to tweak what is there.This looks like it is going to become entirely possiable in the not to distant future with the advancement of neurology.There will be a new dawn for humanity when we have the keys to a greater compassion and who knows what else!Which reminds me, pychopaths represent around 2% of the population-----of course not all psychopaths are violent---psychopaths can be detected in our midst but I don't think they can be legally tracked,at anyrate neurology just may provide the means of cureing the psychopath.

You brought up another point which stirs the interest,instinct,is there any reason to believe that on some level instinctive behaviour is not in a creatures best interest,surely its origins are just that,behaviours which best serve ones survival would perhaps be the purest form of self-interest,ingrained tried and true.

The dog you said did not desire,well here we are going to argue over the thoughts of a dog.He is a pack animal and his best interest is in serveing the pack.A human family fills the ticket when the animal does not have his own kind as a pack.This principle of self-interest is quite likely true across the board,for all living forms.Though denied for eons compassion seems to be a common property in animals as well.Glad they decided not to use us for lab experiments to make better cosmetics.

I guess the short version is this: I think that some decisions are made for the benefit of others more so than for the benefit of self.

Hmm. It would seem that this idea rises out of a misunderstanding about the definition of selfish. I agree that all action is done vis-a-vis a person having a motivation to do that action (as that is kind of the definition of action).

I think to say action is selfish is to ask what exactly selfish means, and this is were the discussion comes in I think. For me, to say that action itself is selfish is pointless, as it defeats the purpose of the word selfish. I tend to view selfish in contrast to selfless, and I tend to see those two words interacting between the action of one person to another. That is to say, someone may act selfishly to someone else, but their action itself is not selfish. These cases are generally more obviously selfish, as the action will cause the other party to lose out in order to compensate a personal gain.

It is a difficult concept none-the-less

Well possibly, but as you yourself stated we have no way of measuring it. Something might be done at a greater cost than benefit (and provide more benefit to someone other than ourselves), I'm not at all rejecting this possibility, I am merely stating that in order for something to be voluntarily done at all there must be atleast a bit of self-interest involved.

I can accept that. And from that point I think it's personal opinion as to how much you think a person is capable of (or willing to) consider other's benifit more than their own.

If "voluntary" means, "self-interested" I suppose that is true. But that is a far cry from saying that if it is voluntary, then it is selfish. "Self-interested" and, "selfish" are two different things. Being self-interested is neutral. Being selfish is not neutral. It is wrong.

But even voluntary actions are not necessarily selfish, or self-interested, or self centered (other than, perhaps, in that the individual considered the decision). Simply because an action does benefit the agent, that benefit is not necessarily the motivation for acting. The agent may even be unaware of the potential benefit of an action.

Simply because an action does benefit the agent, that benefit is not necessarily the motivation for acting.

The argument then simply hangs on the belief (without any argument other than personal experience or opinion) that all people are always selfish.

I must say that it seems a lot of this discussion could be done just by defining terms... I'm agreeing with the "every action is self-centered" idea just enough to say this: That anyone who chooses to act selflessly (save the other guy at his own expense) makes that choice because he "wants" to do what he considers to be right, as opposed to what he would consider to be wrong.