DEFINITIONS
Altruism: The principle or practice of acting out of concern for others’ well-being, without seeking personal benefit or reward. In this context, it is often linked to selflessness, moral virtue, and compassion.
Egoism: The ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality. It may argue that individuals inherently act to benefit themselves, even when appearing to help others.
Morality: A system or code of behavior based on principles of right and wrong.
Self-interest: Healthy self-care - without it there is no helping others
Selfishness: Self-care that does not think of the wellbeing of others
WHY ARGUE THAT SELF-PRESERVATION IS THE MOTIVE BEHIND ALL OUR MOTIVES?
ARGUMENT: If self-preservation is my most basic instinct, then even if I am not aware of it, every motive I have arises from it. Therefore the claim that I can help others without self-interest is false.
The answer to the argument is, "Just because the motive is my motive does not mean it is a self-interested motive."
And the other answer is, "You might let yourself be tortured to death to save innocent children".
The answer ignores how deep and basic our need for self-preservation is.
The suicide only dies because he or she wants to kill the pain not themselves. They die to preserve themselves from the pain. The self-preservation need permeates all our decisions. No decision or thought is tolerated that may take away our life and we can lose life by losing freedom as well as by dying. Life is not life unless one can do what one feels one likes to do - within reason.
Here is a parallel to show the point: Just because a thought I have is my thought it does not mean it is a thought about me. Interesting! But a thought is not a feeling or a motive. The parallel doesn't work. We agree that just because something is mine that doesn't mean I have it for me. But if you substitute the word something with "motive - why I want to please myself by doing something" you see that motive is an exception. A good parallel would be, "Just because I do something to help another and seem to be after no reward that does not mean I didn't do it in some important way for my own fulfilment." That is true. And its truthfulness shows that their parallel is simply wrong. Their parallel when translated properly really is saying the absurd, "Just because my self-centred act is mine doesn't mean it is for me."
The fact that I have a thought doesn't mean that the thought is about me but it does mean that the thought is FOR me. When we go for something or do anything we need thoughts to do it. Therefore everything I do is for me.
But the believers in altruism say that just because an act is selfless, it does not mean it is unselfish. The woman who murders her lover to get his money to give to her son to save her son's life is considered selfish though she has committed an act of sacrifice. The person who spends thousands on surgery to look beautiful and who neglects their parents is making a big sacrifice and risking their life and we consider this selflessness to be selfish because of the neglected parents. So you can't be sure any selfless act is not selfish.
If that is true, then probability alone supports egoism. We should always assume that people are self-interested - perhaps a bit - all the time. It does no good to assume any different.
The woman who murdered her lover can say she made an error in judgement or has some aberration in her conscience so she was altruistic despite what she did. She can say she did right or meant to and that though society may disagree with her that does not mean she was wrong. She can say that differences of opinion are a part of life and just because it was a serious matter doesn't mean she shouldn't have her opinion regardless of what others think.
The surgery addict can say that he or she feels they have no hope of being a good person unless the surgery was done. Selfishness is so easily disguised. Self-interest turns into it so easily as it already has the seeds in it.
And if we go along with people who obscure their self-interest or even selfishness, and start praising their altruism and selflessness then we are misguided. It is best to assume they are self-interested and that egoism is true and that religions that try to eradicate egoism such as Christianity and Islam are in the wrong. To fight egoism is to promote the errors of those who claim they have eradicated it from their hearts.
Just because an act does not directly benefit me, and does it indirectly, does not mean I am selfless. Indirect can be more important than direct.
CONCLUSION
In examining self-preservation and self-interest, it becomes clear that self-preservation is a fundamental motive underlying all human actions, even those that appear altruistic. While altruism is traditionally defined as acting for others' benefit without personal gain, egoism argues that self-interest is the true basis of morality, with individuals ultimately motivated by their own well-being. The need for self-preservation permeates every decision, shaping our motives even when we act seemingly selflessly. Although some argue that motives can be distinct from selfishness, examples show that self-interest often underlies acts labeled as sacrifice or selflessness. Given the difficulty in distinguishing genuine altruism from disguised self-interest, it may be more rational to assume egoism as the default human motivation. This perspective challenges traditional moral views and calls into question efforts to completely eradicate egoism from human behavior.