Solipsism doesn't mean that your actions must be entirely self centred.
True. To give a bit of background on my views:
I can believe in nothing further than my own mind, as any evidence for the existence of anything further than that is suspect; senses, etc. can easily be fooled, but my mind must exist for me to think. This is solipsism in a nutshell.
From this, I realized that belief in Christianity and its teachings - my religion for the first 14 years of my life - is absurd; it is belief in something with no basis on which to believe in it. It is, ultimately, faith; and faith is by definition foolish, as it requires belief in something without sufficient evidence to prove it. Thus, with the rejection of Christianity I rejected its morality, and completely reevaluated everything I do and why I do it.
Examining other religions and philosophies, one sees that most of them have, at some point, the requirement of belief in something further than one's own mind; all require
faith, and thus all are suspect (though they are also all possible). Ideas such as heaven, hell, karma, God, and reincarnation cannot be taken as fact as I have seen no evidence to convince me of their truth (or lack of it); while it is possible for them to be true, I cannot believe in them. And even if I did see material or sensual evidence, even that is, ultimately, not enough; there is not sufficient evidence to convince me that my senses cannot be fooled or their output altered.
Thus, my actions are limited by what I call
enlightened hedonism. Basically, it states that since I exist and my conscious mind is affected by certain moods, chemicals, or something, and I cannot change that, then I'm going to do what I can to provide happiness or pleasure to myself via those moods, chemicals, senses, etc., but with no moral limitations (for obvious reasons; I see no reason to limit my actions based on possibilities that it might possibly have eternal consequences). What does limit my actions is the full spectrum of what impact it has on me; for example, going out and randomly raping/murdering people is not a good idea. Even though it may feel good, it has a high risk of eventually leading to capture and a prison term, or possibly death; the ultimate consequences outweight the immediate benefits. Enlightened hedonism is all about benefiting me, both in the present and in the future, according to the apparent existence of things as provided by my senses - which, although untrustworthy, are the only basis I have.
From a lack of morality, to fulfill my philosophy of enlightened hedonism, I could, for example, steal a cookie from someone and eat it, if I thought I wouldn't get caught. Or lie, cheat, do whatever - as long as it either won't have a negative effect in the future, or if it's not likely, or if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
Since I will not do nasty things to other people unless the benefits outweigh the detriments, it's not really problem for me. If I want a person to like me, I treat them well. If I don't know the person and/or don't like them, I have no such compunction. If I can cheat someone or steal from someone without getting caught, I will.
Enlightened hedonism is essentially the ultimate conclusion of amoral agnosticism; it's the combination of desire for self-gratitude and lack of morals. I can do anything, and I will do anything - if it benefits me.
--Pyronate