comment: >
  
  Why? I am telling you that in this scenario, you will be happy all the time if you do this.
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.