comment: >
  
  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.
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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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.
  
  I have not “redefined” selfishness. The definition I used is the first reason when you look up the definition of selfishness. I think that’s pretty standard. 
  
  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.
  
  I think you have agreed with me and proved my point further. >
  
  I agree with you insofar as "People do things for reasons" is a pretty non-controversal statement. It's also not as profound as you seem to think it is.
  The fact that a murderer and a saint might both have reasons for their actions doesn't make them the same any more than the fact that they both breath oxygen, eat food, or have noses does. That's just the biochemical reality of how conscious human action works. It's silly to draw moral conclusions without looking at 1. what they actually did and it's impacts and 2. what their reasons actually were >
  
  
  
  what they actually did and it's impacts and 2. what their reasons actually were
  
  
  1) That does not matter according to the definition of selfish. They have no correlation. 
  2) Their reason will always be their own personal happiness or pleasure. That’s my point. >
  
  It is possible to simplify something as complex as human behavior to a point that it's no longer valid.
  Humans often do things they know are wrong (say have an affair) not for happiness but to punish themselves (self hatred) or punish another. I'd argue that neither of these involves happiness, but maybe involve selfishness, the two are not tied together.
  I suppose you could argue about psychological motivations, etc and say that people with masochistic tendencies get happiness from their own pain, but it's much more complicated than that.
  Personally, I think human behavior in general is much more about a very real tug of war in our multi part brains and sometimes the hedonistic pleasure part wins and sometimes other parts win. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  I would like to believe that humans are complex than this. 
  
  The simplicity is only in the definition you've used - every action is driven by a motive of some kind. Every agent will have a motive, either conscious or unconscious for every single thing that they ever do.
  Humans are no less simple, or complex because of this fact. We could be infinitely smarter, and we still would have motives. >
  
  yes but your saying all humans are motivated by happiness, the above commenter is saying that what makes people happy is motivated by different things and we need to dive deeper rather than stopping at "everyone is motivated by happiness" >
  
  The trick here is in the semantics. Happiness as we commonly view it is clearly not the only motive.
  But OP is clearly using a broader definition, that includes fulfillment, self esteem, love, guilt, duty etc. They're saying that acting on these things is ultimately still happiness because you would be less happy without satisfying those drives.
  Their point is a trivial one. That all voluntary actions are performed based on some motive from the agent, and therefore are selfish by definition.
  I agree with the commenter that this is a trivial view when defined like that and needn't be detrimental. >
  
  I would argue that it is not selfish to pursue happiness; it is selfish to pursue happiness at the expense of other people’s. >
  
  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? >
  
  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 >
  
  This is just begging the question. How do you know pinching brought them happiness? 
  It sounds like you’re just starting from the premise that everything someone would do brings them “happiness”, in some vaguely defined way, and are blindly applying it to every specific instance. What’s this based on, what justifies that very strong premise? 
  Surely, whether a particular action brings the actor happiness is an empirical question? As it stands, you’re basically ruling out even the possibility of a counterexample a priori. >
  
  Pinching them was intending to bring them the satisfaction of proving OP wrong.
  Everything you do (consciously) is to bring some sort of happiness, whether it’s instant or delayed >
  
  Again, based on what? Where’s your evidence? Is this an empirical claim you’re making here, or just dogma? >
  
  The evidence is very basic logic. The original responder did this to directly counter OP’s claim that people do everything for happiness. If this responder believes that OP’s claim is wrong (which they do, otherwise they wouldn’t have responded to change OP’s mind), then they would expect some degree of satisfaction, however small, from “successfully” disproving OP. A pinch is small price to pay for the satisfaction of winning an argument. Ask this person if they would cut off their arm to do the same thing. >
  
  Yeah, that’s what I figured: pure dogmatism. >
  
  Logic ≠ dogmatism
  I didn’t just state my belief. I gave you a logical explanation. You didn’t give me any counter to it. >
  
  Logic isn’t magic either, it’s just a way to get from a set of premises to a conclusion. Which doesn’t actually get you anywhere if those premises are unsound, such as yours are here. 
  You’re pretending as if you somehow just know what motivates other people, and what makes them happy. It’s not supported by any actual evidence you provided, just your preconceived notions. Exactly the ones that are in question here in the first place. So like I said: pure dogmatism. >
  
  I gave you a logical explanation behind that person’s motivation for pinching themselves. If you think I’m wrong, give me one other possible explanation why they would have pinched themselves. Just one. Or tell my why my premises are unsound, and we can continue the argument from there
  You said that I’m “just pretending” as if I know that person’s motivation for pinching themselves, but I gave a logical explanation behind my thought process. If I randomly see someone who is eating food without anyone forcing them to, it is logical to assume that they are eating because they are hungry. It’s not “just pretending” to know their motivations.
  Logical arguments have no meaning anymore if anyone can tell anyone that “their premises are unsound” or they’re being “dogmatic” without backing up that claim. >
  
  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? >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  When someone steps into danger to protect someone when there’s no time to think (say they jump into cold water to save someone who’s drowning), how are they thinking that will bring them happiness when they could die in that moment too if they evaluated the risk they are taking? >
  
  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?