Further discussion of Peter Smith's view of selfishness

[Plopcynic]

This is a rebuttal of Peter Smith's response to a question about
selfishness posted April 25, 2008.

Peter Smith's response to the question "are all of our actions
selfish?" is quite ingenious, but it still feels lacking to a certain
degree. Peter's only response to the cynic in the third paragraph was
his example of 'The Angel.' This argument provides for a drive to
commit selfless acts: pleasure, but it fails to take into
consideration its opposite: emotional distress. If Peter didn't want
his grandchildren to live in a better world he would feel guilt
instead of pleasure. Guilt tends to be a much longer lasting emotion
than pleasure, and will take either repentance, forgiveness, or a
vast amount of time to resolve. In no circumstance that comes to mind
has an individual been suddenly rid of guilt otherwise. Thus in
Peter's angel argument, the fact that he forgets his encounter with
the angel, and is rid of his guilt for choosing option b, is
incomprehensible to him. Because he cannot comprehend the loss of this
guilt he will always choose option a. Therefore all of our actions do
stem from some selfish purpose. Is there any flaw in this reasoning?

[Plopcynic]

It was his response to question 2093