comment: >
context: /u/a2ew (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I just pinched myself hard enough to cause pain and leave a mark. I expected no happiness out of this. I experienced no feelings of happiness out of this.
  My motive was just to prove the easily provable point that humans only motive is not happiness. Just observing humans doing things will also reflect this truth repeatedly.
  You could argue that self happiness is one of the strongest human motivators, but clearly it isn't the only human motive. >
  
  Pinching yourself did bring you happiness, although you may not be fully conscious of it. Maybe it brought you happiness because you thought it would be a factor in proving your point, or maybe it brought you happiness because you liked the feeling. How it brought you happiness doesn’t matter. 
  You wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t bring you happiness >
  
  You're wrong. It didn't bring me happiness. I know this because I experienced it personally. You insist it did without any knowledge or evidence only because if it didn't that disproves your point.
  Typing this comment brings me no happiness, yet I'm doing it. >
  
  So let me ask this: if not for your own benefit, why did you make the comment? Why didyou pinch yourself? 
  It's easy to say "nuh uh". It's harder to actually really justify your position. Are you saying you don't like being right? You don't enjoy answering reddit cmvs? You don't want to participate in the community? If all that is so, then why are you here? If it's not so, are you not then motivated by a personal desire to enjoy yourself? To find happiness? >
  
  Lazy copy/paste from another response because I think it fits here also:
  ...
  I could have chosen to look at cute animal pictures or watch a funny video. Both of those things would have brought me more happiness than engaging with this thread. So why did I do it? What was my motive? It clearly wasn't seeking happiness.
  I'm not sure what my motive is. But the fact that there is more than one motive to choose from means OP's claim that there is only 1 motive must be incorrect. >
  
  Perhaps you chose to reply here because engaging in this discourse makes you a more intelligent and well-rounded person, while watching cat videos most certainly would not? You become happier as a result of further enhancing your skills. >
  
  This gets posted quite a bit and inevitably relies on the fact that the poster has redefined selfishness to define any voluntary action when most english speakers use selfish to describe behavior that priorities oneself unreasonably to the detriment of others.
  Yes -- people, when they're making conscious choices, do things for reasons. You might donate to charity because it makes you feel good that you're improving the conditions of those less fortunate than you. You might leap in front of a bus to protect a child because you don't think you could live with being the kind of person who allowed a child to perish. You might rob a bank because you want money and you don't care about the emotional distress and physical risk you'll cause the teller.
  Those are all reasons that the doer found satisfactory (I guess you could say that made them happy, although I think happiness is more complicated than that). but clearly we can make distinctions as to the quality of each justification relative to the impact of the action. >
  
  Your first point effectively means nothing other than you recognize the difference. Wouldn't this then make it easier to respond to, not more difficult? Or do you find the question tedious? 
  You didn't actually attempt to prove him wrong as much as you emphatically agreed with him. You listed no examples where someone does things for no reason, only that there are reasons someone would do good things(all personally beneficial). >
  
  Well I am curioous why you think it is a negative view or something you want to get rid of. I don't understand the negative implications of it. 
  How is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?
  And what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing? >
  
  It’s a negative view because I find myself using it to justify people’s actions that aren’t just. It’s also oversimplifies humans and the reasoning as to why we do the things we do. I would like to believe that humans are complex than this. 
  
  How is it bad for someone to do good things because it makes them happy?
  
  That in itself is not bad. I’m saying that having the ideology is disadvantageous to me and that is why I want to change it. 
  
  And what is the alternative, doing good things because it makes you feel sad, or nothing?
  
  I don’t think there is any alternative. >
  
  Everything is super simple if you reduce them down far enough. Humans are complex, but if you boil every possible motivation to do something as “happiness” then they stop being as complex. Then when you discard any morality around WHY they’re “happy” and call all happiness seeking as equally “selfish,” then they’re even simpler. 
  Nobody has ever used “selfless” to refer to a person who does something that they have absolutely no reason to do, and hate doing. Most people would consider somebody who does things that only makes them miserable mentally ill. And yet the words selfish and selfless continue to exist.
  Why? Because when people use those terms they’re talking about the reasons behind a person’s happiness. Somebody who is made happy by helping other people is considered selfless, while somebody who is only made happy by hoarding wealth or power is considered selfish. 
  The myriad of reasons we feel what we feel are what makes humans complex. The end result of actually feeling the emotions is just a biochemical response and can seem simple if you remove all other context. >
  
  Sometimes people sacrifice their lives, for other people's happiness, survival or various other motives.
  This means they no longer get to experience happiness, at least earthly happiness. >
  
  Well they sacrifice their lives because it benefits them to save others.
  For example, in some religions kids are taught that if they die in a heroic way, or if they die for their God, they will go to heaven. This is why they find happiness in sacrificing their life. But the motivation was still their own happiness. >
  
  Atheists sacrifice their lives for others too. People voluntarily spend their final moments in pain while fully expecting no happiness to come of it. >
  
  I understand that atheist do it too. That was only an example. I agree with your first sentence. I only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it. >
  
  
  I only disagree that anyone can voluntarily do something without happiness being the majority factor of why they did it.
  
  But how?  You agreed that some people sacrifice their lives, and the only advantage was that maybe there's some religious reward.  So take away the religious award, and presume that the person didn't sacrifice themselves as a suicide measure, and what "selfish happiness" is left? >
  
  Like most circular disprovable hypothesis this is also probably false.  It is intellectually identical to something like "god".  
  Beyond that trap, you can certainly point to depressed people who relieve misery of the deepest level bit only to make things tolerable.  They find no happiness, and don't think it even a possibility.  If you don't believe happiness can exist for you generally or experiential then it can't motivate you.
  Or...you can look at it as a consequence not a motivator.  I would stop a bullet from hitting my child even if it made me sad.  It just happens that it wouldn't.  It is not the motivator, just a consequence of following and achieving you more root motivation. >
  
  I would argue that it is not selfish to pursue happiness; it is selfish to pursue happiness at the expense of other people’s. >
  
  The only issue I can see with this is that your definition of selfish mentions "lacking consideration for others," and people are capable of considering and acting for others in a way that is irrelevant to your own needs. You could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire, but I think it's an area to consider. >
  
  
  You could make the argument that the reason to do this is some form of self-preservation or desire
  
  I agree with that argument. >
  
  I understand the reasoning for this view. It simplifies people and creates a baseline for every act a person could commit. If only happiness was the root cause for everything people do. If it were, I think we'd be able to understand each other. 
  At the very least, psychologists would stop tearing their hair out trying to quantify motivation. 
  There's a LOT that goes into it. There's roughly four approaches, I think? Behaviorist, Humanistic, The hierarchy of needs, and Cognitive. But Im not sure any of them would simplify all human motivation as a pursuit of happiness. 
  Why? Mainly, what is happiness? Think seriously: How do you define the state of being happy? What does that mean? I know, not something you usually think about in an internet thread. 
  So according to the oxford dictionary:  The state of pleasurable contentment of mind; deep pleasure in or contentment with one's circumstances.
  Cool. What's pleasure? 
  Pleasure:  a state of feeling or being happy or satisfied
  Wow, that was circular af, thanks oxford. Fine, what chemicals make happiness?
  Science says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.
  So I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff? >
  
  This was extremely insightful. 
  
  Science says: Serotonin. Dopamine. Endorphins.
  
  So I pose this question to you: if all motivation is solely the pursuit of these three chemicals, do you think, at some point in the future, humanity will eventually just dunk our brains into a cocktail of this stuff?
  Yes, if we think that it will bring us pleasure. >
  
  Let's say We know it will. It is a fact. So let's say this magical brain jar is offered to you. Science can put your brain in serotonin, dopamine, endorphin mix. 
  Do you accept? >
  
  No I don’t only because I don’t actually think it will make me happier. Science says it will, but it sounds terrible. It sounds like hell in my opinion. >
  
  Why? I am telling you that in this scenario, you will be happy all the time if you do this. >
  
  Too absolute. >
  
  I'm not sure this position is actually that meaningful.
  There's still a difference between a person who is happy to make others suffer and a person who is happy to make others happy. And we should try to train ourselves - and our children - to be happy at the happiness of others, and sad at the sadness of others. 
  All your position does is change virtue from "helps people even if it makes them sad" to "has learned to be happy when helping others", which is not, in practice, all that different. I think it sounds different to a kind of person who really doesn't value feelings very much, but the whole point of kindness, of goodness to other people, was feelings in the first place. If anything, an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and +1 unit to me is better than an action that provides +500 units of happiness to someone else and -1 unit to me. >
  
  All of this seems to be true, but it doesn’t disprove or change my view. It was insightful though. >
  
  
  Humans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest.
  
  I'll pick apart the word "only" in that statement. Humans are social animals, and we're perfectly capable of doing things that benefit the group at the expense of ourselves. In evolutionary biology, altruism is behavior that increases the fitness of others at the expense of your own fitness. Like when someone sacrifices themselves to rescue others, they are trading away all future profits and pleasures for the benefit of others. That simply doesn't add up from a personal utility perspective. Indeed, if everyone always selfishly pursued their own immediate interests at the expense of group survival, we would have died out as a species; living together and sharing resources meant making compromises on our personal freedom and happiness. >
  
  I have £5 in my wallet, I'm heading to the bar to buy a pint which will make me happy.
  Instead I give the £5 to charity and head home.
  The act of giving money made me feel some satisfaction but that's because I was concerned about others. It also cost me the happiness of having a pint, so overall my happiness may be lower then not giving the money. >
  
  Devil's advocate: 
  Whatever choice would have brought you more happiness is hypothetical. However, the decision you made on the spot is what matters. If it was possible to thoroughly analyze all factors that went through your head at the time, your donation was still out of self-interest and at the time outweighed the negatives. 
  For example, even if you didn't "gain" happiness, you avoided suffering from guilt/shame etc. >
  
  If my expected opportunity cost of happiness was higher than the happiness generated though then I haven't acted to maximize my happiness, and I feel no guilt or shame for having a pint instead of giving money to charity. so that argument doesn't hold up. >
  
  The problem is that you assume it didn't maximize your happiness. The decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it. In retrospect we can evaluate that it was the "wrong decision", sure, but not based on the information you had at the time.
  We're speaking hypotheticals so neither if us can prove our position nor do I know how much you like beer or charities (guilt was just an example). Personally, I can't think of a single conscious decision human beings could make that's truly selfless. >
  
  
  The decision you made on the spot was made to maximize your happiness, otherwise you wouldn't have been capable of performing it.
  
  I'm saying the opposite, humans can and do things that they don't believe will maximise their happiness. All of these actions are therefore selfless. >
  
  The usual problem here is with what does it mean to be selfish. 
  Because being concerned chiefly with your own personal profit and pleasure as defined in your "every action is ultimately concerned with ones own search for pleasure" is not necessarily the same as "lacking consideration for others".
  Like there's a difference between long and short term selfishness. Like a shortsighted act of selfishness might be to steal something because you want it. You have it now someone else doesn't, clear win-lose situation. But you could also cooperate with others form friendships and relationships that make you both better off because of it. You could still argue that "... but ultimately it makes you happy", but that's fundamentally a different set of actions than the short sighted version of selfishness. The letter kind of selfishness might even lead you to perform acts that would, out of context, be described as altruism. So are you still talking about the same thing and would the long term selfishness still fit the "lacking considerations for others" part? Because maybe you draw happiness from the happiness of other people so your happiness relies chiefly on their happiness. >
  
  Your argument is reductionary.   All cars have tires.  So all cars are tires?  It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward.  
  Even altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego.  A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. 
  This is more so a lense that speaks about you the observer than it does the subject.  
  Logic is a good tool but a bad master.  You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you.  Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience.  Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊 >
  
  Thank you 
  
  Your argument is reductionary.   All cars have tires.  So all cars are tires?  It is just an attendant component of the complexity of motivation and drivers that push humans forward. 
  
  Well it’s more like me saying that all cars are at least 51% (or majority) tires. Now imagine the definition of “tires” is “majority of tires” (similar to how the definition of selfish is concerned chiefly with your own personal pleasure). That means that all cars are tires. 
  
  Even altruism and dying for loved ones can be reduced to an act of ego.  A person finds their literal death preferable to the death of the person they believe themselves to be quite often. 
  
  This is similar to what my point is. 
  
  Logic is a good tool but a bad master.  You have said yourself it does not comport with reality seeming better or more good to you.  Jesus would call it the spirit, Socrates his Daemon, and Freud your conscience.  Whatever it is, always listen to it first and foremost and have a great day.😊
  
  I think that being disproved is what I need to get rid of this ideology and that’s why I posted this. You have a great day as well. >
  
  How exactly do you expect someone to change your view? Because it seems that anything someone argues does not bring happiness, you would argue it does. If I have a piece of information that would hurt someone else and I withhold that information to spare their wellbeing, even if they told me they didn't want to know, is that still selfish? Have I brought myself happiness even if the information is painful and I think they should know but telling them would unwillingly hurt them? >
  
  
  I want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked. 
  
  Tell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this? 
  Walk by a homeless man and you give him money, it can be used as evidence for this being true. Don't give him money and it can be used as evidence for this being true.  Kick him and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you happy and it can be used as evidence for this being true. Do anything that makes you sad and it can be used as evidence for this being true. 
  No matter what you do in any situation, it can be twisted into being evidence as this being true. There's no actual substance to this idea because it's completely impossible to disprove and it has no predictive power. >
  
  I would like to believe that this can be disproved because I admitted it is not beneficial to have it. I also admit that I don’t see that it can be logically disproved, but I have hope. You may be right. 
  
  Tell me one thing that someone could do that would disprove this?
  
  I don’t have an answer to this question. >
  
  You're missing my point. Imagine a scientific theory like this "all objects go the direction they want to go" and then any time I saw an object go any direction I said "Look it's poof of my theory!". You could never disprove this, but at the same time you wouldn't have to. It's unfalsifiable and untestable. It makes no predictions. It's a completely meaningless theory. Yours is the same.
  It relies on a twisted definition of selfish. Is the person who gives $5 to charity really equally selfish as the one who steals $5 from charity? >
  
  Every situation can be trivially reduced, this does not mean it is reasonable to do so. Some will say that, because we can imagine a selfish interpretation for every interaction, that all interactions must therefor be selfish. That is, that altruism does not exist because we have decided all interactions are zero-sum. 
  But all interactions are not zero-sum, and just saying it's so doesn't make it so. 
  If you are starving, and I give you my cookie, I'm not suddenly as asshole if I feel good about it. I did a good thing and I feel good about that. That's a win win, a scenario where both parties benefit. 
  If someone then comes and says, "But, Loaf, you only gave him a cookie so you would feel good!" they have now said that either I am lying, or I am delusional. Either everyone in the world is pretending that goodness is a thing so that we can trick each other, or everyone who thinks goodness is a thing is actually crazy.
  When modeling human interactions, it's not really helpful to reduce them so far that we conclude that most people are deluded. At that point, we aren't really talking about human interactions. We are talking about "well, genetic expressions prompt you to do this and that, and hormones are making you do XYZ." Again, now we have reduced things past the point of usefulness. There's merit in discussing the role of smaller elements to the emergent properties they together create, but that's not the only place we find merit. 
  Consider the validity of saying, "A sandwich is just atoms," or "A painting is just pixels." 
  So to when we say "A good action isn't good if you are motivated by feeling good." It's not useful, and we are distracted by its triviality. 
  Reject the zero-sum approach. You can do something for the sake of another person, and you can simultaneously feel good about doing that. >
  
  
  Selfish: of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. 
  
  Emphasis on the bold bit. That doesn't apply to your argument. Eg:
  
  The only reason that one helps others is for his own personal benefit: his happiness
  
  We don't help others necessarily because we want to be happy. We often get happiness from doing so, but for it to qualify as selfishness by your definition, that happiness needs to be the main objective. That is not the case. >
  
  I've meet along people in the medical who would love to quit because they don't enjoy but stay because they feel it would be wrong not to use their experience and education to continue to help despite they hate actually having to do it.If you place other people's positive experience above your own how can you be pursuing happiness.Sure you could say it's out of guilt but reducing guilt is More a middle ground position then a positive development. >
  
  
  lacking consideration for others
  
  Even if my happiness is my ultimate goal, if that happiness is derived from consideration for others, then it is not selfish. Self-interested, sure, but not selfish. >
  
  This is a hard argument to debunk because “happiness” can mean basically anything. Are you referring to pleasure? Satisfaction?, fulfillment? 
  I can buy a new today and it will make me feel “happy” for a bit.
  I can save the money and feel “happy” about that. 
  See what I mean? >
  
  This claim is an unfalsifiable self-fulfilling prophecy, and thus it is impossible to change your view. You've basically defined happiness as "any reason why anyone does anything." A person fighting a murderer to save a child is by your definition "selfish" because they either find gratification from doing the right thing or would otherwise feel guilty for having done nothing.
  Any example a commenter could possibly give will fall prey to your circular reasoning. You'd simply reject any altruistic motive and claim that all motives are fundamentally based on "happiness," even though you haven't defined what "happiness" even is.
  If we really boil your view down it's really just an argument that free will doesn't exist. >
  
  The human capacity for empathy allows us to make other people well being part of our own well being.  You can deconstruct the mechanics of altruism but that doesn’t change what it is. Of course there is an internal mechanism.  Sure you end up at self interest but that self interest is one that has the capacity to incorporate others into it.  If we never evolved empathy what “self-interest” looks like we be very different.
  So you can say it’s all self-interest but you have to ask what each self interest is.  Someone who finds fulfillment taking care of babies cares more for others than someone who finds fulfillment eating them.
  A related point is that frameworks that center around judging individuals moral character often don’t make much sense and judging outcomes is much more sensible when it comes to actually defining a definition of ethics, even if in application judgements are implemented. >
  
  You're 100% right >
  
  You are mistaken about what selfish means.
  Lets take two people. A gets happiness from doing things for others, from seeing other people be happy. B gets happiness from doing things that come at a detriment or even harm to others.
  That difference personality is what is called selfish in Bs case. Both are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.
  
  What or who decides the things that make a person happy is unknown
  
  The cause of them becoming who they are is irrelevant, just the fact of who they are matters. This isn't about fault. >
  
  The analogy you’ve used to try to get me to understand what selfish means does not match with the standard Oxfords language’s definition of selfish that I provided in my post. 
  
  Both are in it for happiness, but a different source of happiness.
  
  In other words, they are concerned chiefly with one’s own profit or pleasure. In other words, they are both selfish. >
  
  It does though, maybe i worded it unclearly. Pleasure is not the same as happiness.
  Getting happiness from giving others pleasure vs getting happiness from giving yourself pleasure. If you use Oxford's definition, you need to use Oxford's meaning. And if someone gets happy helping others, then they by definition are NOT chiefly concerned with their own pleasure, but with that of others. >
  
  I'd say you should judge less by people's intentions than by their actions. If someone does something for a friend that gets them no material gain except for happiness, describing that as a selfish act seems extremely suspect to me. 
  You seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. A defining trait of selflessness, in my opinion, is being happy to make others happy. >
  
  
  You seem to assume that any act which brings pleasure is primarily for that pleasure. But consider the balance of benefit. If I get some pleasure from giving away $50,000 to hungry kids, but a hundred kids get food they need for a year, the balance of benefit clearly goes away from me. I could probably have spent that money on things that gave me much more pleasure, but I didn't. I shared the pleasure. I think saying that is selfish is just wrong. 
  
  It is not wrong. Whether you shared the pleasure or not and whether it gave them more pleasure or not doesn’t matter according to the standard definition of selfish. 
  What were the other things you were concerned about when you did that action that had nothing to do with your own personal pleasure? Was your own personal pleasure at least 51% of what you were concerned about? 
  If you were to answer the first question I’m sure everything you say would have to do with your own personal pleasure. And if you answered yes to the second question, it was a selfish act. >
  
  Of course it matters on the standard definition of selfish. If I give up 5 pleasure units so my friends can get 10 units, it's still selfless even if I still get 3 pleasure units. >
  
  I had another comment challenging the first part of the view -- but I'd like to challenge the 2nd part separately.
  
  All humans are equally selfish
  
  One way to measure how selfish a person is would be to look at how far they are willing to go to obtain their own happiness. One way to measure this is by how much unhappiness or pain/suffering they are willing to cause others for self happiness. 
  There are many things I could do that would make me happy but those things would cause others sadness, harm, or suffering so I choose to not do those things. A different person may care so much about their own happiness that they are more willing to cause sadness, harm/suffering to others to achieve their own happiness.
  This shows that not all humans are equally selfish. 
  I agree with your point that kind acts can be selfish. However, that doesn't mean all humans are equally selfish. Some humans are more selfish than others. >
  
  
  I recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it, and I hope that it can be logically disproved or debunked.
  
  Could you expand on this a little? What do you mean by ‘adopted’ - how have your behaviours changed? In what ways has this disadvantaged you? >
  
  Yes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”. 
  How have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me? 
  I have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me >
  
  It seems like you would say that it’s your experience that this has been a bad way to organise your behaviour. Right? You’re getting sub optimal outcomes. 
  Why do you think everyone else would act this way, in this case? Do you think the whole world is organised so that we act to our own detriment? You don’t think any of us would adjust our behaviour if that was the case? >
  
  It sounds like you've already identified the problem with this view. You've taken a concept that already has a common usage understanding and redefined it in a way that robs it is any practicality. Everyone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word. >
  
  
  Everyone is selfish if you change the word to no longer capture what people mean when they use the word.
  
  But I haven’t done that. I’ve just used the standard definition of the word. >
  
  Selfish in common usage implies a willingness to act dishonestly or harm others for personal gain. It's not just having positive regard for your own well-being and acting on it in general. >
  
  Why would I use the word “selfish” in the “common usage” rather than the definition? Who truly knows what a word implies in the common usage? Why do you think you know the “common usage”? 
  This is a terrible point. You’re saying that the definition of the word isn’t the appropriate definition to use. >
  
  Common usage is something you absorb just by existing in the world and interacting with people. Most words you know you never had to explicitly look up the meaning. A good definition is one that accurately captures how people actually use a word. >
  
  But here's the real question - what the hell is "happiness"? I would argue that your point is invalid purely based off this, since happiness is essentially a byproduct and a concept we attribute to certain feelings in a certain context. If you ask anyone to describe happiness they will describe how they feel when they are "happy". What they should really be saying is they feel endorphins, oxytocin and dopamine which create a feeling of fulfillment and this can lead to a moment of joy or elation. Is that moment happiness? Or is happiness the absence of sadness? Which is a question in itself >
  
  When I pet a puppy am I not chiefly concerned with both my happiness and the puppy's happiness? In other words, even when I do things that make me happy, can't I also do them because they make someone else happy? Can't I choose which action to take based upon maximizing both my happiness and someone else's? 
  If so, then I am not "chiefly concerned with [my] own profit," but concerned for my profit and someone else's at the same time. >
  
  So if someone presses a loaded gun to my head and tells me to perform a sex act on them or else they’ll blow my head off, I would perform the sex act because it makes me happy to do so? 
  There are other motivators besides happiness. Survival is a huge one for humans. And sometimes surviving means you’ve nothing to look forward to than to keep surviving. >
  
  
  The only human motive is happiness
  
  When I go to the eye doctor, I know that by not flinching, I will have a faster more streamlined eye exam. I flinch a lot regardless of this knowledge. Human instinct can sometimes run counter to what will make us most happy. >
  
  Yea what you do usually won’t be the thing that will actually bring you the most happiness. Yea, it may put me in the happiest position to do whatever I need to in order to make a ton of money and be fit and get all of the things we value as humans etc. But that doesn’t mean we do what will actually make us happy. >
  
  I do get your point and tend to agree, but you could avoid a lot of responses below by not using the word "selfish" but instead something along the lines of: "Humans aren't capable of conscious decisions which don't benefit themselves in some way".  
  We use the word selfish to describe a personality trait, usually understood as a lack of consideration for others. Which is definitely a spectrum and not equal among all humans.  
  What I do think is universal, which is also the point you're trying to get across, is that every single human action is rooted in some level of self-interest. To either gain happiness or avoid suffering. >
  
  I think you’re right about me being able to avoid a lot of the responses below by wording the view differently. I’m not sure what I can do now that it’s posted except for further explain my point. 
  Thank you for understanding the point im attempting to get across. >
  
  We have not evolved based on happiness. We have evolved to survive and pass on our genes. Happiness is a reward we sometimes get for doing things that promote one of these two activities but people will stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they perceive that their survival will be threatened if they leave. >
  
  Do you believe in free will? It would be hard to believe this and free will at the same time. >
  
  Not really. Since the things that determine what brings us happiness is unknown and can’t be changed, we don’t really have free will. >
  
  What about people with mood disorders which prevent them from enjoying anything? >
  
  They may not actually experience the happiness, but the motive is the same. >
  
  How is it the same if they cannot meet the definition of happiness that you're using? People who have affective disorders have interferences with the hormones which feed the "happiness" emotion. As such they're not capable of acting in a way that benefits them. It tends to make their worldview more dire and shapes/alters their motivations. Oftentimes the lack the ability to act in any way that encourages their own personal gains.
  The missing thread here that's jumbled up is that you're too limited on your "selfish" definition. By and large people don't act completely independent of others unless they're diagnosed as a sociopath. In reality, humans are naturally social creatures which means they act in the benefit of people of their concern. Families are often times the most likely to benefit from this.
  People with mood or social disorders (autism spectrum) often times wind up outside of these circles of interest for other people. This leads to isolation and further dismissal of their problems.
  If your worldview was true there wouldn't be cliques, political divide, or activists group. You've taken a concept of self interest and extrapolated it out past a functional definition. Yes people are out for their own self interests, but oxytocin specifically is a defining social hormone that gives reciprocity with other people creating strong social bonds.
  Yes, it's a chemical feedback system which results in good feelings, but those are in the interests of helping others only for the reasons that it feels good *to* help others. Therefore it's not intrinsically selfish as you assert here.
  The proof of this is in the people that either lack that function (sociopaths) or people in which that social feedback system is stunted (depressive or autism disorders) lack social fulfillment and it impacts their lives for the worst. >
  
  It may just be syntax, but I think the subtlety of words can be important.
  I’d posit that contentedness is indeed a universal driver, but happiness may not mean exactly the same thing… pleasure-seeking can be detrimental sometimes - I smoke and drink too much, because it makes me feel happy. It also makes me feel guilty and worried about my health, decreasing happiness when I wake up at 3am and can’t sleep for worry I’ll die before old age. 
  Seeking contentment, a solid roof over my head and the means to provide for myself, good conversations with loved ones - having loved ones in general - watching fireworks and giving a kind word to a coworker who I don’t particularly care for, but is going through a rough time… all of those things do indeed make me feel “good”, content, and sometimes happy. Happy isn’t a state you can maintain consistently at all times, content CAN be… if you have some luck and the means. So I think they’re different. 
  It may be a very good thing that humans seek pleasure - food tastes good for a reason. We need to crave fats and protein or we wouldn’t be here. Get a dopamine drip when we eat a beautiful meal. 
  Looking at a pretty painting can give us that reward drip too. A song you love, etc. 
  So you could say humans are addicted to happiness. We actively seek it, probably for very sound biological reasons - and yet, as with any addiction, some of us can take it too far…
  You are right that making a sacrifice can be for pleasure. Martyrdom - for instance, the one coworker who never takes a lunch break, and loves to loudly remind everyone with a “poor me, but no no I’m fine, I guess I just care about the work more than anyone else!” They are certainly getting “satisfaction” from feeling superior, even if they have an unhealthy relationship to happiness. 
  We are animals, after all, and I doubt you would fault a cat for self-serving behavior. 
  Self-serving isn’t the same as selfish. Self-preservation isn’t selfish. Self-centered is often used in the same way as, but technically, isn’t “selfish”. 
  And self-absorbed isn’t even always such a bad thing, tho it sure can be. 
  Selfish is more like greedy. A need to take as much as possible, regardless of whether it hurts others. 
  Yes, I want to live and live fairly well, I’d also really like to be able to do that without hurting anyone, and then the next goal is to help others. All of those goals will make me content, and sometimes happy. That’s a very good thing! Am I truly selfish in those goals? 
  I’m trying to leave morals out of this as much as possible and just think more about biological aspects, but, even tho we are animals, we are a unique breed, in that we can consider morals. Unlike my cat, who wants to kill that bunny that’s wandering my field. Not for desperate need for food, but for happiness. No moral quandary there for him. Lucky guy.
  You sound existential in a sad way. I’m sorry you feel that way. I suppose you could say that taking a moment to talk to you about this, and share my perspective, is me trying to make myself happy. That I will feel smug or smart or… or something, maybe even just being kind, that makes me happy. 
  I guess maybe caring that you sound sad kinda makes me feel validation that I’m a caring person. But more than anything, I kinda just would like you to feel more positive about people and their intentions. It might make you… happy!
  Eat that cheeseburger and watch that great movie! Denying yourself any pleasures because you’re focusing on how selfish it is to enjoy life is self-torture. 
  Couldn’t that be sorta the same thing you’re talking about? Might it make you feel “good” to deny yourself? Is it possibly hypocritical and martyrdom? Just like my coworker.
  But also try to be altruistic and kind - happiness can be so very good. It’s a feedback loop that puts more happy in a sometimes cruel world. 
  We don’t know why we are here, but while we have a seat at this table, we should accept the cup of goodness life has to offer. And be grateful for it. >
  
  All of the things you named are good examples of people doing things that don’t seem to give them pleasure, for pleasure. I realize now that “happiness” is extremely vague and it’s pretty much circular. It’s a synonym for a lot of words. >
  
  Ah - what I was trying to say is that there are different “flavors”, different intent and meaning behind the actions of people in the the words I used. That they aren’t synonyms, exactly. Each term I used was meant to convey a slight slant on a slightly different intention and observed behavior.
  But words fail, and I may not have explained my feelings well. >
  
  I mean, - ignoring the question of whether you're right or now - that is not covered by the meaning of the word "selfish".
  What you're describing is the concept of motivation - we do something because we believe that it is something that we should do, in some way or another. That is inherent to all actions.
  The point is that, under that assumption, it makes no sense to define "selfish" in such a way. I would even argue that "selfish" always excludes one's own gratification - if you do something for fun but do not harm or hinder anyone else, few people would call it "selfish". The idea of something being "selfish" is always directed outwardly. It talks about influences and results outside of one's own psyche, as that is the only thing reasonably affecting others. >
  
  Does a person care for others because it makes him happy, or does it make him happy because he cares about others? 
  You’re framing happiness as the origin motive here, but it may be that happiness is the byproduct of caring for someone. >
  
  It’s interchangeable. That doesn’t combat my view. >
  
  Max Stirner / Johann Kaspar Schmidt's entire ethical philosophy revolves around this. But at the end of the day, he concludes that even if humans are effectively driven solely by their own desires and what makes them happy, what of it? That doesn't change the fact that human beings are biologically driven towards empathy and sympathy.
  Even if one loves another because it makes them happy, they still love. Even if one helps another because they believe they need to get in a good deed for the day or because it makes them feel better or they were raised to believe that they need to help others, that doesn't change the fact that they're still helping another individual.
  People do things for reasons born from themselves, that's a no-brainer. But it also changes absolutely nothing at the end of the day. >
  
  I argue that your premise is at odds with itself. If the only human motive is selfishness, why do people do self sacrificing acts?
  While yes, I agree with you, our organic brains are hard wired to seek pleasure, and that certain pro social behavior is itself rewarding, it is nonetheless pleasure at the feeling of others pleasure, the very definition of empathy. 
  Consider this: a group of men are fighting in a war. One man volunteers to run out and draw away the enemy's fire. He knows this will more than likely kill him. If he is absolutely selfish, why would he do it? Why would he sacrifice all pleasure for the lives of others?
  Yes you can boil down that it is perhaps self reinforcing to be seen as heroic,  but is that selfish? Is the reward for doing so truly self centered or does it only matter if one believes that OTHERS will find it so? In a vacuum,  bravery is foolish, and leads to death, the end of all pleasure. But belief that others will see it as worthy and a good example (independent of one's religious perspective) makes it reinforcing, makes it pleasurable, makes it worth while to the suicidally brave hero. 
  Consider the opposite.  Antisocial behavior.  Theft, murder etc. You have what I want so I take it from you by force. Self indulgence to gluttony, to addiction,  to Ultimately self destruction.  This too leads one to pleasure and death, but , in the well adjusted/non delusional mind at any rate, brings with it guilt. Self imposed suffering for benefitting from others suffering. The same guilt you feel when you see others in pain knowing you are the cause or indirectly related to it. A truly selfish mind would cause no guilt, would steal and kill as long as it benefited them (think chaotic evil).
  Empathy and self sacrifice. These things, though rewarding to the self, are examples of delaying or denying one's pleasures and joy for the sake of others. The feelings these bring us encourage us to act so, but they are not evidence of absolute selfishness. These are evidence that we can get along with others. Conversely,  guilt at actions and thoughts shows that we do care for others, and that our motives are not entirely self centered. 
  Now that I think about it,  why am I even writing this to you? For the meaningless pleasure of a delta? To show that I'm right to someone I don't know and will never meet? Or am I doing it because someone I don't know and will never meet asked me for my help to find a logical way out of a moral quandary, one who's tenants and beliefs bring them angst and perhaps some guilt?  You, OP, may never even read this comment, so any pleasure in it is mine alone, but  that pleasure is not in my own head. It starts, and ends, with the belief that I will change your view on this point and hypothetically feel better. To that, this effort is itself entirely directed towards someone else's benefit. That is not selfish. >
  
  You have an amazing comment here and I did actually read it. 
  The conclusion you came to in regards to why you typed it out is wrong. I don’t know which aspect of it brought you the pleasure, but something did. And that was your main motivation. >
  
  The problem here is is that your engaging in a fallacy called begging the question.  In response to people's arguments, you say that they only did that because it brought them pleasure.  But that's the idea you're trying to prove.  You've taken that conclusion, and made it your assumption, and it's very easy to prove something if you begin with it as an assumption. >
  
  Our behavior is to a large extent dictated by our upbringing, our genes, our current physiological state, much more than we'd like to admit.
  Case in point, exercise feels good but I don't get my Ass out of the chair. It doesn't make me happy to procrastinate, I don't think it will, I know exercise will though. Yet I don't do it.
  Arguably many, if not most, of our behavior is automatic and reflexive. Ingrained habits. Behavioral schemas running on autopilot. Yet, if you question why person x did behavior y, they'll guickly come up with a justification. Now that justification might be ultimately anchored in hedonism and thus be "selfish", but that's not the same as hedonistic motive causing the behavior.
  Social justification theory is one understanding in the above direction, and explains things such as culture, communication, language, etc.
  Yesterday I did the dishes. I often do the dishes. If pressed, I'll say I do it because I enjoy a clean kitchen or to make others happy or to feel good because I did good. But it's an automatic behavior for me. Usually I just do it. Good upbringing perhaps. Or what about those who do split decisions like risking their lives for someone else. Do you think they did the mental calculus of what gives them the most pleasure? Did they even have time to do it? But when asked afterwards, you can be sure they have a good reason for it, although if pressed they'll say they did it without thinking.
  Others, on the other hand, would stand and watch. Did they think it through or it just wasn't in their "programming" to do so? >
  
  What about someone like Peter Singer? Or Immanuel Kant? Or Mother Theresa? I’ve heard Theresa lived am awful life. >
  
  You're right that we're all equally "selfish" but it's not happiness that is what drives us: it's survival. Specifically survival of our genetic material. That means successful reproduction at all cost. Happiness, to the extent that it has any meaning at all, is just one marker of progress toward the purpose of survival. 
  
  Being told that you are no better in motive than anyone else on the planet may be a hard pill to swallow.
  
  Only if you have mistakenly subscribed to the concept of a moral hierarchy - i.e. that people (usually the person with that belief) are "better" than others beyond any context. 
  
  I recently adopted this philosophy and I am finding that it is extremely disadvantageous. I want to get rid of it
  
  I don't think you should. It's correct (besides the misidentifying happiness as the incentive). And while it may seem negative, there's a ton of positive implications you can take from it: 
  1) Forgiveness - since we're all inherently doing the same thing. Most importantly: forgive yourself for not being an angel. 
  2) Responsibility - it's up to you to not let the chaos and darkness inside you get the upper hand since you're not inherently "better" than those who failed at that. 
  3) Prevent atrocities - by understanding that it's not just "madness" or some other kind of dismissal of the bad guys, we understand the risk is that any normal person can do terrible things. Knowing that is key to preventing it. See the Banality of Evil.
  4) Gratitude - to think that we - being pure survival-oriented entities, having clawed our way past a brutal, unforgiving competition over countless other species and wound up creating concepts like forgiveness, justice and countless works of beauty is perhaps the most remarkable occurrence imaginable. 
  That's just off the top of my head. It's not ordered or complete. >
  
  ∆. As a result of this comment, I see that my view is not as disadvantageous as I thought it was before your comment. I see that this view has positive, as well as negatives. I see that it’s not entirely bad. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AloysiusC (7∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I would probably say that human motive ultimately boils down to emotions (as opposed to rational justification), but not necessarily just happiness. I think happiness is a somewhat specific emotion.
  As far as selfishness goes, i don't know if I'd say everyone's equally selfish. I think there is such a thing as having concern for another's well being. Sure it might not be true altruism, but there certainly is a difference between having concern for another's well being and withholding empathy or displaying apathy for someone else's suffering. >
  
  The motion you argue. Is loosely constructed because of the complexity over human emotions, motives, and the human mind itself. What your post created is a topic without room to discuss because you hold the opinion high ground as the topic starter. Judging from some responses you aren't to inclined to openly evaluate someone's responses with an unbiased eye. This is less of a cmv and more a, "This is my opinion, say it isn't so I can say it is."
  Take the example, a homeless man offering money to a wealthy man who has no cash for a busfare. 
  Your perspective follows: The homeless man gave up his money to feel happy that he helped someone else.
  The homeless man's perspective: I know what it's like having no money, so I'll spare someone else from having to experience not having money, even if it is a small thing. I'll be broke but it's better to help than sit around and let others suffer. 
  Anyone could come in and poke any type of emotional, or logical holes in this example, and that's the point. You can't label the motives of every single human. Fortunately, almost no one is exactly the same as someone else. I can work a job, I don't do it because I'm happy to work, or happy to make money. I do it because the world runs on money and I have 0 options to live other than get a job. The alternative is. Be homeless. Neither option makes me happy. I'd rather be lazy all day if I could, and do what I want. But I can't. Because I have to work so I can pay bills, buy food, go places to have fun, buy games. My hobbies make me happy. My forced existence and forced life of working does not. >
  
  I would challenge the view that this view is disadvantageous. Can you say why you think it is? >
  
  Yes, I’ll copy and paste my reply to another person with an extremely similar question to yours. 
  “Yes I’m happy to expand. Adopt: choose to take up, follow, or use. If it’s easier for you to understand, replace it with “assume”.
  How have my behaviors changed? What ways have this disadvantaged me?
  I have started to be more selfish and self interested. I’ve started to justify other peoples selfish and self interested actions. I’ve lost excitement in trying to decipher what the motivations were behind other people’s actions. Those are the main ways this has disadvantaged me” >
  
  From the other angle:  It's not so much about happiness as it is avoiding guilty feelings.  Sometimes we know that any pleasure gained or convenience preserved by not helping others is trivial compared to the amount of anguish allowed to befall that person in most need of help. >
  
  I agree. >
  
  Some people get happiness out of making others happy. Some people only get happiness from doing things for themselves.
  The fact that we are all motivated by what makes us happy, does not make us equally selfish, simply because different things make us happy. IE, gift giving vs gift receiving.
  I think to be correct, all humans are motivated by happiness, but we are not equally selfish because different things make different people happy. >
  
  Um you know that most of the time people are just trying to be nice? I know that may seem like an alien emotion to you but that's just the case. Are doctors just doing what they do out of their own personal happiness? Some of them are, but most of them just want to help people in need. >
  
  OP is misusing both the words ‘selfish’ and ‘happy’
  Selfish in the definition provided necessitates a lack of consideration for others. If I sacrifice myself for my son, that is entirely because of my consideration for him. And it will not make me happy. It will make me dead. I’d do it with fear and anger and pain in my heart. But I’d do it.  This is not a selfish act. 
  Happy - op is using the word happy to mean basically any reason for any action. It doesn’t make me happy to work, but I do it out of necessity. Is this better than abject poverty?  Yes. Does that mean I’m doing it to be happy?  No. >
  
  Of all the reasons people do what they do, the pursuit of happiness wouldn’t be in the top 5 >
  
  I don’t think this will change your mind - but what difference does it make for you to assume one’s intents?  
  You shouldn’t assume anything of anyone, you’ll drive yourself nuts and be wrong the majority of the time anyway.  
  No one here, you included - can ever determine if you’re correct.  We’d need to survey the consciousness of every living human.  Your ‘adopted philosophy’ is just a shot in the dark. Absolutes are rarely useful. >
  
  Go have a kid, friend. I promise you will do a bunch of stuff that makes you miserable because you want someone else to be happy. >
  
  Some people feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things for others. Some people do not feel happiness when they do things for others, and therefore do things only for themselves. The people in the former category are more selfless than those in the latter category. >
  
  
  Humans are only capable of doing what will make them happiest or what we think will make us happiest. We don’t have to do anything, so everything that we do is for that reason. 
  
  What about all the people who hate their job but still go to work every day? You might say spending money makes them happy but what about the people who work so that they can pay their rent and feed their family? It would be pretty cynical to say their just doing what makes them happy. It is more like they are doing it so they do not feel worse. >
  
  I am pretty much in support of this typical utilitarian view. If you actually want to get this ideology debunked, I would say the biggest problem is not what it says about any individual, but the application of it.
  So by saying the application I mean that utilitarianism inevitably entails some sort of tradeoff when one's happiness affects the happiness of others. It entails that as long as the gain by person A is bigger than the loss by person B, then such action is beneficial to society as a whole as the absolute unit of happiness increases. Following this logic, one could argue that sacrificing a few people for the "greater good" is justified, and this is against some of the basic ideas of constitutionalism, a fundamental ideology upon which the modern state is built. Say, you cannot kill an innocent person, take his organs and use them to save five people. 
  This is pretty much the problem of the application of utilitarianism, but again, I don't think the view itself is problematic. Hope this can help. >
  
  You need to draw a distinction between happiness and satisfaction. This is analogous to the difference between something being beautiful and something being sublime. 
  I could be happy by eating candy all day, but I would not be satisfied. But some things that make me satisfied do not make me happy. Like studying math makes me satisfied, but at the cost of happiness. 
  So happiness becomes problematic if we treat it monolithically. At the least we need to recognize some core distinctions and say that what we are motivated by is a complicated relationship between happiness, satisfaction, and unhappiness and dissatisfaction. >
  
  Human's primary motive is survival
  Once survival is ensured, then the primary motive shifts to happiness.
  In the modern world, basic survival is assured for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time (quality of life may vary, but usually basic survival is assured).  So, without the need for the survival motivation, most of us have transitioned to the happiness motivation.
  To your second point, people in (true) communal cultures derive happiness BOTH from their own selfish desires AND from the successes of others.  Modern society bastardised the 2nd part and frames the success of others as something to be jealous of - and I don't just mean monetarily, even family success is affected.  In other words, thr American Dream is a farce
  Without the understanding that the success of others isn't something to be jealous of, we dive further into our selfish desires, and it seems as though our selfish desires are the only path to happiness. >
  
  Yesterday I made myself a ramen noodle and Vienna sausage meal. It caused me great sadness to eat it, because it was disgusting but I am poor and I was hungry. When I was 23 I slept in my car not because it brought me happiness but because it was cold outside and I was tired. Happiness hasn’t been in my motivation pool until recently. Happiness is a great motivator, you know what else motivates people? Hunger. >
  
  Yes. But. Happy people don’t want to think about it. >
  
  This is some nihilistic, pseudointellectual bullshit. You don't want your view changed, you want to be condescending and seem like some tortured mind crumbling under its own genius. Get over yourself, maybe go outside and see that the world is actually a nice place, despite what you may see on the news and social media. >
  
  I honestly wish this was true but its very obvious you've never had to deal with any form of mental illness before.
  What I mean to say is, you believe this due to a bias you have. You may actually be more selfish than others(or less). Your post doesn't indicate either. But some of us live a life we hate where nothing we do makes us happy, and I feel like you must have lived a very different life to feel the complete opposite. >
  
  Absolutely not. I'd dolre for my child than myself. Ijs
  The point of life is happiness and challenge. However you can't enjoy anything without contrast. Losing and loss. If your baselines are raised your expectations also rise. So you'll be in a downward spiral if you think it's just happiness. >
  
  I can counter this argument! This discussion is highly anecdotal though.
  I think every human has one end goal: Love. 
  To be loved, to love, love.
  People that hurt do so because they want to be loved but have lost their way. 
  People that help do so because they love, or want love, and that could never be selfish because what difference does it make if the help is all the same in the end? Love is all the same. >
  
  Well, I guess you can always argue that by happiness you don't actually mean happiness but some sort of a broad self-serving concept. Cause "happy" is definitely not the word that motivates all actions people do. If you're hungry and in a hurry so you'll make yourself a shitty sandwich so you're a bit less hungry, you're not happy or even happier. You're often not even less miserable, you're just a bit less hungry.
  But yes, if you bring it to that broad level, you're probably right. Already the way we've evolved means that our brain is wired for some sort of self-preservation, which then causes us to prefer to do things that keeps us alive and safe and reproducing etc. Which brings me to the next example: kids. People who have kids definitely do things that might not make them happy but are good for their kids. This is again not happiness, it might even be the opposite of that on the feeling-level, but they do it so their kids will have a better life. Again, in the broader sense, it's probably rooted to how we're wired to keep the human species going. 
  But I do think there are some exceptions to this. Like certain habits that you do and don't even know why you do them. They might have started from self-preservation or happiness but have progressed to a point where they might no longer serve any purpose. Or let's take it a step further: addiction. A lot of addicts are addicted enough that they don't get any happiness from their addiction. Sure, they get relief from the withdrawals they'd get if they stopped drinking/smoking/doing drugs but it's definitely not happiness. It's just a reaction.