Bittersweet

 My first semester of college, in addition to the [stupid] decision to take an 8am calculus course, I also enrolled in American Heritage. It was one of those General requirements, which resulted in a large class where nobody knew anybody, but it also had occasional "labs" [or whatever they called it], which were much smaller (<12 students) groups lead by one of many TAs. I don't remember the professor's name, but I remember the TA I had: Jason Alexander Smith. Yes, almost 2 decades later and I still know his name. I did not like him, and so would silently mutter "Jason Alexander Smith," full name, as if he were in trouble with his mother.

There were several reasons why I detested his presence [enough that, if I saw him on campus--even from the corner of my eye, without full conscious recognition--I would instantly feel bad vibes; I don't know if those vibes were coming from him or me], but one of them was that he argued that no one, even Jesus, did anything out of pure selfless intent. He reasoned that even the act of the Atonement could be for selfish reasons, because by the Atonement Jesus was providing a way for us all to be happy, which made him (Jesus) happy. Not sure how it related to the history and government of our country [maybe stating that assuming everyone acts out of self-interest allows a sort of balance to be maintained if you play it right??], but the assertion has always bothered me. So, Jason Alexander Smith, here is my answer:

As a preface to this response, let me point out that you, J.A.S., were the one who opened the door on allowing religious considerations in the argument. So the only way I can discredit your claim is religiously.

The problem with stating that good/righteous actions are selfish is that, to make that statement, you have to de-couple an action from its consequence. You are contending that the Atonement, or any other moral act, is good because it is good--it is the only definition you have left, because if you claim it is good because it let Christ be selfish, you enter into the moronic territory of asserting that good [Atonement] equals bad [selfishness]. It's hard to argue with good=good, but you have forgotten, unfortunately, that this good=good argument--and especially the good=bad statement--makes defining "good" nearly impossible.

It is the consequence--the ultimate consequence, not just one of the side effects--that defines morality. Doing good will bring ultimate happiness, while doing evil will bring eventual misery. These consequences must be in place in order for choices to even be possible; and the ability to choose is central to defining a right and a wrong. Consider the prophet Lehi's teaching: "The Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." "For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, [...] righteousness could not be brought to pass."

Christ's atoning sacrifice is good because it brings happiness, both to Him and to those who qualify for his mercy.

Satan's plan of forced salvation [or, closely related, action without consequence] is evil because it brings misery--nobody feels like they belong, nobody understands the context of the 'heaven' they are in, because without its counterpart 'hell', "paradise" has no meaning. 

If it brought no happiness, then it wouldn't be good.

Stop playing the devil's advocate.

If there is no bitter, then there would be no sweet.