All people are selfish. People who give to others derive pleasure from it, and they like that pleasure. Not enough to base an economy on it, though. People soon get tired of working hard only to give the results to loafers.
I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, but instead repeated your original assertion.
Let's say I declare that your observation is not true of me personally. Note that this doesn't necessitate any evidence external to me; I could introspect and discover this about myself, however you don't have the ability to "introspect" into my own mind.
How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? And please note, I am not looking for a restatement here, I understand what your view is.
By having a conversation with you. I'd point out your pride and self-satisfaction at being unselfish. If I knew of you more than that, I'd point out your selfish behavior. It's not hard, look at the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the cookie you ate, your grooming, and so on.
You wouldn't think much of my clothing. I've never owned a car. My grooming is minimal, my appearance just doesn't cross my mind. But I do like a nice cookie.
I behave selfishly sometimes, no question. Does that really define the entirety of who I am? Why would it define me more than, say, when I feel bored, or when I behave generously, or when I do things on impulse? Afterall, I try to avoid behaving selfishly, so I spend a lot more time in these other frames of mind. Why shouldn't the totality be what defines me or anyone else?
Flattening a human being into mere selfishness might be a convenient assumption to build models around, but the map is not the terrain.
Lets break it down, how much of your income do you spend on yourself, your family, friends and community you live in, how much to benefit society as whole where you see almost no benefit what so ever?
There is a reason economist use the term, self-interest, not selfishness. And it doesn't 'define you as a human' but it non the less true in the behavior patterns for 99.999999999% of humanity.
You simply biologically have to look out for your own survival, and in the few cases you don't, its because you put family or sometimes community above your own interest. But that still is self-interested.
No, not really. Following my values usually feels neutral. Sometimes it feels absolutely terrible.
What I'm trying to tell you is that this is an intrinsic goal, not an instrumental goal. If you were to ask me, "why do you have values?" or "why do you follow your values?" I wouldn't even know how to answer, it would be like asking a fish why it swims.
Alternatively; why do you do things you enjoy? Why do you do things that benefit you? Why does it matter to derive benefit?
---
As far as I see it, the point of contention here is that you believe there exists only one intrinsic goal. I not only disagree but contend that I experience other intrinsic goals.
At this point, I don't really see how one of us could convince the other. You don't believe my self-reported experience for one reason or another. I know I have other intrinsic goals, so your hypothesis is exploded from my perspective. I was trying to demonstrate that you don't have access to other people's experiences and can't really know what motivates them, but you seem unmoved.
But if you have a different idea or line of argument I'm happy to entertain it.
A fish swims because a fish swims. (It's an idiom.)
> Only one? No.
If you actually believed this I don't think you'd have much reason to doubt me when I said I had an intrinsic goal other than selfishness. Why would you unless you believed it was impossible?
> Frankly, I don't believe you do things from which you derive neither benefit nor satisfaction.
This would seem to imply you do believe there exists only one intrinsic goal. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Is it possible to have an intrinsic goal other than selfishness, or isn't it?
