My point is that goals don't need underlying reasons.

Sounds self serving to me. — Jeremiah

What do I get out of it? It doesn't make me feel good about myself. I doesn't take away any guilt. I'm not doing it to strengthen the social structure. I'm not hoping he'll like me and help me later. There is no moral content to the act at all.

You are just playing games with language.

I always feel good when I help others, maybe you are broken.

My point is that goals don't need underlying reasons. — Alec

I'll say to you what I said to Jeremiah, you're just playing games with language.

I am sorry but I am not sure what your concern is here.

My point to @Hanover was that I could want something but not have any deeper reason for wanting it. Any actions resulting from that want is geared towards that goal. A goal may be a reason but that does not mean that the goal itself is determined by a deeper reason which was what I had tried to emphasize. If you disagree that it cannot be, then I am open to hearing it.

So here's how you started off this thread:

On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions. If somebody didn't donate to a charity then they would be guilt-ridden by not doing anything. — Alec

Your argument was that since there's always an underlying fulfillment of personal desire by carrying out a seemingly selfless act, all acts must be inherently selfish. I disagreed, arguing that fulfillment of desire (i.e. doing what you want) does not make an act selfish. In order to determine whether something is selfless, you simply look to the specific act and see if it primarily is directed at helping others.

But here you say:

If you want an example of an selfless intentional act that has a reason, then it is very simple to provide one. Compare "I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so" to "I want to save someone from a burning house because it is the right thing to do". If you still think that the latter is somehow impossible then please tell me what is wrong here. — Alec

This appears to ignore your initial concern, namely that the fulfillment of personal desire negates the selfless quality of the act. The first example and the second example you give above are indistinct in that regard. Your wanting to do the right thing (and therefore doing the right thing) obviously results in some sort of benefit to you else you wouldn't do it. If you didn't do it, what would be the repercussion? You'd wish you had?

Your argument was that since there's always an underlying fulfillment of personal desire by carrying out a seemingly selfless act, all acts must be inherently selfish. I disagreed, arguing that fulfillment of desire (i.e. doing what you want) does not make an act selfish. In order to determine whether something is selfless, you simply look to the specific act and see if it primarily is directed at helping others. — Hanover

No, I never emphasized any "underlying fulfillment of personal desire" at all. I am confused as to how you came to that interpretation, given that in the very line you have quoted, I was strictly referring to the avoidance of guilt one could achieve by performing a selfless deed:

On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions. If somebody didn't donate to a charity then they would be guilt-ridden by not doing anything. — Alec

(My Emphasis)

Simply put, you're making false assumptions about what I am saying, which explains our disagreement.

I think it depends on the language game one is playing. In one sense, everything is clearly an expression of self-interest. If I sacrifice for those I love, I satisfy my love for them, etc. If I die for my country, I satisfy my intense love for this country, even at the cost of my own death.

But "selfish" is often used to call out a "cheater" in some social system. A "selfish" person is a bad team player. Those who accuse him or her of selfishness are concerned for their own interests. Why bother calling someone selfish unless it interferes with one's interest? Nevertheless, they are prudent to team up and accuse the freeloader of violating a notion of fair play.

Wittgenstein definitely influenced my answer here. As you may know, he advises philosophers to see how words are used in context. If we pluck "self interest" or "selfishness" out of its varied uses and treat it like a static entity, then we get apparent contradictions. We get lost in philosophical debates about an unreal entity (context independent meaning) that philosophers invented in their confusion in the first place.

think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population. — MikeL

If it was for promoting the survival of the species, why would those acts be selfish? Acting for the good of others is not defined as selfish by most moral codes.

Also, I'm suspicious of reducing all human motivation to genes. Genes can explain how we evolved abilities like empathy, but they don't necessarily explain the complex behavior that occurs as a result of those abilities, particularly in the kinds of societies humans live in, where culture is a big thing.

Consider your brain. You can come up with evolution stories for how the different faculties of your brain evolved. But none of those explain sitting in a classroom discussing Plato. That's on an entirely different level of explanation (historical, cultural, sociological, meta-cognitive, etc).

It's like saying that Lebron James was born to play basketball. No, he wasn't. Basketball isn't something any human evolved to play, nor is Plato something any human evolved to think about it. Rather, those are complex emergent behaviors because we create culture and can self-reflect, and like to have fun while challenging ourselves.

Any time someone wants something that isn't to their own benefit. Compare I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs. I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so. — Alec

Is this really why people rush in to save someone from a burning house? Do you think the would-be rescuer sits there and debates with themselves until guilt takes over, and they decide to risk their lives?

That's not what I've heard. People tend to act heroically in the moment, but they can't really say why they did.

On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions — Alec

Would you want someone to say that they loved and cared for you, but they didn't gain anything from it? That their concern for your well being was not accompanied by any feeling on their part? That it didn't satisfy any desire in them? That they wouldn't feel bad if something bad happened to us?

Consider someone bringing their lover a flower, but explaining that it gave them no pleasure or gain from doing so. Would the lover accept such an offering?

No, not at all. We don't want that from our loved ones.

If you can watch an episode of "Dark Matters: Twisted But True" which is called " Killed by kindness" which deals with this exact question. Your question actually involves a bit of advance psychology as well as game theory so there really isn't a simple answer to it other than that we are in many ways programmed to some degree by our genetic code as well as through social conditioning and it is almost impossible to operate outside of what those two things allow us to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matters:_Twisted_But_True
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price