Human Motivations Are Never Selfless

This was actually a really interesting debate. I would say that both sides did very well here in framing the outline of their argument.

For me, this boils down to whether con can find a specific example of a selfless act performed by humans.

The example he chooses is someone taking a bullet for a child. (There are a variety of related sub items con touches upon). Con points out that the individual likely isn’t thinking about what they will gain, but the other individual benefit.

The definition pro gives (albeit late) for selfless is:
“Selfless: entirely concerned with things other than yourself and your own needs and wants.”

From here, the back and forth is about automatic reactions and whether they constitute a motivation - whether they are selfless or arbitrary. I don’t necessarily think that an reaction like diving in front of a child is necessarily unconscious or thoughtless - but this doesn’t really play out in the debate so I won’t consider it.

The conspicuously missing definition in this debate is “motivation”, and the back and forth between pro and con really all stems to the difference between their interpretation of motivations.

If “motivation” is either conscious, or means the direct reason for performing an action, then this goes to con.

If I am to accept motivation as more of an inherent or indirect cause for why the action is considered then I would chose Pro.

For example - jumping in front of a bullet as con points out is not some for joy, or motivated by direct benefit - but the instinct likely has some degree of inherent indirect conferred benefit. IE: the reason that the instinct exists is to assist long term survival.

For me, what this boils down to is some very basic interpretations that con gave me, and that covered in the definitions.

Con spelt or that there is no direct benefit conferred for dying for a child. The scenario seems pretty clear cut - sacrifice yourself for someone else. This appears on its face altruistic and inherently selfless. That pushes me towards con.

The definition provided by pro is that selfless is a where your not concerning yourself with your own benefit. This seems more in line with what Con is arguing - that an instinctual behaviour isn’t focused on the self - and can be considered selfless.

On top of this, without much in the way of detailed discussion on what motivation mean, I feel the implicit definition pro seems to use is a bit too tenuous for me to accept.

For these three reasons, I am pushed over to cons side, and will award him arguments.

Very interesting debate though guys.