Is a motive altruistic, egoistic or egotistic?

A motive is a reason to do something.  It may or may not involve a feeling.  A desire can be a motive.

It is held that we always have a self-interested motive - even a small one.  So we act from several motives.  Sometimes the reward is built into the action.  Or we may hope to get a future reward.

You will help nobody unless you come up with a motive of self-interest - unless you find something in it to aim for for yourself.  If you cannot help somebody unless there is something in it to benefit you, then clearly you put yourself before the other person even as you help them.

Several individual motives culminate in the one act.  So you cannot know if the act is how altruistic, egoistic or egotistic the act is.  Generally, that is decided on what the strongest motive is.  But you don't see that either.

If you look at yourself, it is so hard to assess.  So how can you assess anybody else that well?

There is the problem of how egotistic motives can hide as altruistic or egoistic motives.  An altruistic one can be mistaken for egotistic or egoistic.

Each motive needs separate assessment and that seems elusive.

The more you hurt for others the more altruistic you are. In a way or in the best way under the circumstances, the person with a built in aversion to doing good does far more good in giving ten cent to a poor person than a billionaire who at ease gives a million.  it takes heroism for them to override their own evil.  Anything less than agony will not suffice. Goodness is in the will and not in the emotions so having bad feelings does not make you bad as long as you do not cause them. You have to will the good despite the revulsion.

What do you say to those who say that having bad feelings about doing good is a sign of a bad character?

That is not fair if the murderous doctor suddenly jumps in the river to get a baby out.

We lie about how much we value altruism.  Do you really care if a baby gets his food because his carer is being altruistic? No you care that he gets the food. That cannot be called immoral though it may not be ideal. We cannot change how we think so it is not our fault even we think nature should have made us better than that!

We have talked about motives and actions.  But not acting is acting - it is making something happen.  If you do not do x, you make something else happen.  What we show of ourselves by doing nothing, says more about us than what we do.

So motives?  We are not clear.  If we are seeing altruism, is it because we want it to be real?  If altruism is rare, it is going to be even more uncommon when it swims in a sea of psychological projection. Like attracts like so how altruistic is it really?

Conclusion

In the end, the question of whether a motive is altruistic, egoistic, or egotistic resists easy answers. Human actions are rarely powered by a single, pure intention. Instead, they emerge from a web of mixed motives—some self-serving, some selfless, and some hidden even from ourselves. We often act from self-interest, even in acts that look generous, and yet this doesn’t necessarily make our actions immoral or insincere. What matters is not just what we do, but why we do it—and even then, our motives are hard to isolate, judge, or fully understand.

We may praise altruism, but we often don’t live by it or even notice when it’s absent, so long as the outcome serves our values or needs. We may condemn selfishness, but in practice, it underpins most of what we do—including the good. The truth may be that moral judgment must shift away from romantic ideas of pure motives and toward honest reflection on the complexity of human behavior.

If goodness lies in the will, then perhaps the real measure is whether we act in spite of ourselves—not whether we feel noble doing it. And sometimes, what we choose not to do reveals more about our moral character than any action we take. In this way, the study of motive remains central to any serious discussion of ethics, but it is a study that must begin with humility, not certainty.