You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Even our most charitable actions are a means to certain kind of personal happiness and satisfaction.
If you have some self interest, it doesn't mean you're being selfish.
A lot of the things i do, aren't meant to my personal happiness or satisfaction, then i am a counter example to your hypothesis.
I can be a liar or delusional, but you will need a way to disprove the counter examples, that didn’t rely on your hypothesis itself, and that allow it to be falsifiable
Also continuation of species and empathy
should be considered
Continuation of the species is selfish, as it's the continuation of your genetic legacy.
If you don't have kids and work to continue the species, this is different.
It is relative of how you define a species.
A few time ago, "the continuation of the species" had nothing to do with genetics, because we didn’t know anything about genetics.
And i am confident this kind of goals have still very few to do with it now, it is more about consciousness than genes
Even then there's the legacy of knowledge. On the whole we agree here though.
The continuation of your genetic legacy could be a form of "extended selfishness", but it is not selfishness itself.
It is a goal orthogonal to the selfish/altruism axis, because it is not about your own well-being nor the well-being of others.
It doesn't need to be about your well-being to be selfish. One of the larger goals people have is to not be forgotten. While there are very few ways to guarantee that you yourself will not, you can guarantee that a part of you will not, and this accomplishes that goal for some.
I need your definition of selfishness to go more far.
In a way, (because) basic survival requires one to eventually take a portion of a pool of limited resources (food, housing, money etc.) to use on themselves instead of giving it to another.
If you take for yourself and leave some with others in mind it is not selfish.
Being selfish means caring for only yourself. If when you act it is for the well being of others as well as yourself it is not selfish.
In caring for others, you also care for yourself, as they are more likely to help you down the line.
Define "selfish." This relies on some conception of free will or freedom of choice. From a purely reductionistic viewpoint, everything is just chemicals, and chemicals cannot be selfish; there must be a higher level of abstraction.
Altruism is the most intelligent form of egoism.
Altruism is not a form of egoism.
Why not? By being altruistic, you simultaneously raise the chance of survival for those around you, and make them more likely to help you. It improves your circumstances, therefore, it could be considered selfish.
Being altruist is about caring for others, being selfish is about not caring for others.
These words are antonyms, if by a reasoning you end up with one word being a form of the other, this reasoning is probably incorrect.
(my other premise contradicts your premise more specifically)
The only way a species can be altruistic by nature is through its evolution. My argument more-or-less describes the mechanism by which such traits are selected for. Whether it's conscious or not, it's likely that's the reasoning behind altruism.
I respond in the "source", because the characters limit is very annoying.
tldr : The evolutionist reasons of a behavior, have no reason to be the same than the psychological reasons of a behavior, and have very good reasons to not be the same
Animals eat because they are hungry, not because they think, consciously or not, that it will help them spread their genes
Being selfish is about what you care about, about your goals, not about the consequences of what you do.
If something you do, helps you, without that being your main goal, or a goal at all, it doesn’t follow that you are selfish.
This is almost identical to your other rebuttal.
My other rebuttal was more general and didn’t address your point specifically.
It was just "you end up with two antonyms being the same thing, there is certainly a problem".
But i felt it was unfair to not address the problem in your reasoning specifically.