HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Proof for Psychological Egoism
  
Some religions argue for psychological egoism

 

“Lord, the end of another messed-up day. I let you down at every turn. I’ve lived for myself all through” (page 4, Friday Penance, John C Edwards SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1985). The Church says we do good works but only in the eyes of man. A selfish person is pleased when those who are totally self-interested do things that happen to work out for him. He will call them good. Calling people good does not necessarily mean they are being said to be altruistic.

 

God is that which is so good nothing and no one more good can exist.  Even religions that say you are perfect in dealing with your fellow human being deny that you are perfect with God.  Christians say there are flaws even in the good we do for God - always.  For some secularists and atheists, you are never really unselfish with others.  For believers in God you are never ever really unselfish in your dealings with God.


The Definitions
 
If you didn’t have motives, reasons for acting, you would never do anything.
 
Philosophers say there are three possibilities for why we do what we do. No more and no less. They are saying there are three different motives. Altruism, Egoism and Egotism.
 
Altruism is being interested in the welfare of others and not in yourself. Others matter but you don’t.
 
Egoism means you do what you do, and make others happy, out of self-interest. If you are nice to people because it fulfils your desire to be nice that is egoism. Egoism, when properly understood, does not say that you always do what has the most pleasure in it or that you necessarily do only what will result in very enjoyable consequences for you. It is more centred on fulfilling the desire to act than any other results or other pleasures that the act may bring. The only pleasure it is worried about is the satisfaction that is found in being able to do what you want – regardless of how good or poor the side-effects of this pleasure are. We do not always want to do whatever has the maximal pleasure in it. We would be too afraid that others would be able to control us if they could use pleasure as a bait to get us to do what they want. We value the pleasure of being free beings above any other pleasure however great.
 
Egotism means you do what you do out of self-interest without any concern for other people or that you just help people because you want to feel good about yourself afterwards.
 
Some psychologists believe in psychological egoism. This theory says that everything we do is caused by self-interest only. It says we can’t help this – it is just the way we are made.
 
The definition of egoism that we will use here is, egoism is fulfilling your immediate self-interest by responding to your desire to act. In other words, even if you carry a beggar to his hometown on your back knowing there is nothing in it for you, the only thing there is in it for you is that you fulfilled your wish to do this. You may not have liked it very much but you liked it enough to do it. The definition has to be correct for most refutations of psychological egoism and most proponents of psychological egoism are based on the false supposition that egoism is saying that we only go after what has the most future pleasure in it for us. If the supposition were true every naïve teenager and egoist would be on drugs. But it is not necessarily true.
 
An act can be self-interested without being about future pleasure. When you see a child, who is a stranger to you, in the middle of a busy road that is in danger of being killed within minutes and you run out to the child to save the child making it very likely that you will be the one that will end up dead you are not thinking of how much pleasure you will get by saving the child. You are not thinking of how bad you will feel if you stand there and let the child die. You desire to save the child and that is where the delight is: in doing the act or in fulfilling the desire. You crave the goodness inherent in the act. You are satisfying a need in yourself. To satisfy a need for alcohol is seen as selfish and to satisfy a need to save the child is seen as unselfish. It makes no sense for its just satisfying a need. A need is just a need. You are not thinking of the need when you save the child but its there and you are responding to it.

Let us clarify what egoism is. It is the pleasure we go after in the present, not future, fulfilling of the desire to do such and such an action and nothing else. Psychological egoists are right to say we go after what gives us the most pleasure but only in this sense.


What is psychological egoism? Egoism/selfishness is when you are good to people but mainly or only because in some way you benefit from it.  Some call the idea that your main motive is always selfish predominate egoism.  We will ignore that though it is regarded as more likely to be true than the suggestion that we are all about self.

 

If we don't want psychological egoism or predominate egoism to be true that may mean we are in fact being selfish when we say we reject them.  If they are true then we are being selfish.
 
A person who helps others just so that he can feel good is definitely an egoist for it is the feeling not the people that matter to him. And the danger is that if he is sure he can feel great by abusing people he will if he can get away with it.


Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: not their own own welfare but what they think is their own welfare. Nobody really knows that if the good things you aim for will really do you much good.  The think part is important.  It means a person can think they are being unselfish when they are being selfish.  It means a person can make a totally convincing altruist and not be.

 

Motive

 

Psychological egoists and psychological altruists and everything in between claim that we can only guess at our motives but we cannot know them for sure.  We can therefore do something we think is selfless and be wrong.  The objection is that if you are bad at reading your motives that does not mean that the other person is not more accurate.  But what if you think you are accurate but only by chance?  What if it was only luck that you happened to be right?  And the fact remains that believing your motives are selfless is not the same as being very sure.  Belief is not certainty.  If it is easy for motives to disguise themselves or for you to disguise them to yourself or if motives are a mixture of different outlooks such as selfishness and unselfishness and neutral stuff it stands to reason that we can never be sure that we are altruistic.  Altruism hurts and we do well without it and others can benefit so it is wise to presuppose the dominating motive when we act is never altruism.  A man can risk his life by jumping into the pond to save the drowning baby in a bid to become altruistic which means he is not being altruistic but trying to be.  If altruism is idealised but unnatural then trying to be altruistic is a form of self-interest.  It is selfish to try and exalt yourself over what you are.  It is a form of arrogance.

 

Two interpretations of psychological egoism

 

What kind of egoism is psychological egoism about?
 
There are two proposed answers.


One: Those who argue that self-interest simply means acting because you want to – to satisfy the desire to act say that we are self-interested even if we help others without wanting anything back for we are getting something back: we are fulfilling a desire to act.


Two: Those who pretend to help others but are really doing it for themselves. They have no real wish to help others. It is a means to an end.


One is controversial.  Many deny that that is really egoism.  They claim that having a desire to help another does not mean you are selfish in having the desire.  Even if that were true, it could mean it!

 

What about the argument, "You cannot get anything good without desiring things other that what is good".  If you only look for your own welfare then you will fail.  You must have considerations apart from yourself in order to be well and do well.

 

But that argument if it works shows we are not all about doing well at the expense of others.  But then a new problem arises.  It is clearly saying we are all self-interested!  That means because it is good for me I help others. 

 

Weakness


If my will is weak it means I might not do the things that I know are best for me. How does that relate to egoism?  It means that altruism might be me making one of my mistakes.  If it is a mistake it is not altruism!
 
Reality
 
The reality is I am me and nobody else and nobody knows what mistakes I should risk like me. I cannot feel the same way about me as I would about another person [I can just try very hard but the more I try the more I fool myself] for I am not that person and not living under their skin. Because of that I am continually pressured by myself to put myself first. It is not down to selfishness, selfishness as in taking from others and hurting them so I can benefit, but just the way we are made. Mind your own business is the most important saying there is. If I am programmed to be nice but for myself then it is selfish to tell me to be any different!
 
Desire and Psychological Egoism
 
People who give up an evening watching a film they really wanted to see to dole out soup in a homeless shelter are not altruists. They had the desire to reject better feelings to experience less good feelings. They are still doing what they desire. Desire demands self-fulfilment. Desire is necessarily self-centred which is why we must consider egoism to be proven. To say we have desires is the same as saying we are egoistic. Religion and many ethical systems try to make people see this truth as repulsive.
 
If a mother decides to get pregnant even though the pregnancy according to the best medical advice would be months of suffering and pain is she altruistic?
 
She is making a choice, if you believe in that word, and a choice is the desire you want to fulfil. So a desire causes her to choose what desire to fulfil. It is the same with everybody.
 
As much suffering as the decision will make she makes it to satisfy desires. This is nothing other than the Buddhist truth that we cannot do anything without some desire that seeks to be fulfilled. The consequences of the decision will be terrible and made worthwhile by the baby. But she refuses to let the pain and suffering put her off. She desires not to let it put her off. She is fulfilling desires all the time so she is not being altruistic at all.
 
To make it simpler, if she says, “I want to suffer to have this baby,” focus on the words, “I want.” “I want”, means, “I wish to be fulfilled in doing this thing.” This is egoism. Psychological egoism is true.
 
It is obvious that psychological egotism isn’t true. What about psychological altruism? Altruism implies that other people matter and you don’t and we know people don’t think like that. And besides if you don’t matter why should anybody else? If we were altruistic we would all be evil but we are not. Psychological egoism is the only one of them that can be true.
 
If we are capable of genuine selflessness then why do we prefer other people to suffer than ourselves? Would you give up everything to let some stranger’s horrific suffering be transferred to you instead?
 
Ewing writes in Ethics, “To modern psychologists and philosophers it is plain that desire comes on the whole first and pleasure second and that the desire for pleasure as such plays only a small part in life. It is true that I could not desire something that was not in some way pleasant to me (though it might in other respects be very painful), but this does not prove that I only desire anything for the sake of the pleasure it will give” (page 26). He doesn't tell us why. If you find him confusing then be told that this is a contradiction nobody can expect you not to notice but it is one you are not allowed to say exists. He talks as if the pleasure doesn't necessarily have anything to do with you choosing the action and then he says it does for you don't choose anything unless you see something pleasant in it. If you do something because it pleases you then that is something selfish. Ewing cannot accept hedonism for he is biased towards the delusions about self-sacrifice and altruism that society is ridden with.

If you desire something that means you want the pleasure of the desire to be fulfilled. You can desire to leave a party early to help a depressed friend though it will diminish your pleasure. But though you are turning your back on fun, it does not follow that you are renouncing pleasure. It just means you are taking the pleasure of doing what you want and not the pleasure of hedonism. Even hedonistic pleasure ceases to be pleasure if you feel addicted to it. To do what you desire is the greatest and most important pleasure of all in the long run. It is failing to realise this that makes people believe in the possibility of altruism.
 
Caring about doing good does not make you an altruist. You can caringly give a friend a gun though they say they will go and shoot somebody with it when you are sure they will get away with the shooting. Caring about doing right does make you an altruist. You need to care about doing right to be an altruist but that doesn't mean altruism and doing right are necessarily the same thing. People don't really care about right and wrong. All they care about is what they want to do. People are so easily conditioned. At the root of this, is their desire to be like everybody around them and to fit in and get all the benefits that fitting in offers. Society conditions you to jump into a river and save a drowning child. Responding to conditioning is not altruism.

Egoism is a form of selfishness. To care about rules not good is selfish. To care about good not rules is also selfish for good is associated by us with promoting happiness and wellbeing and because we know that just because something is good doesn't make it moral. You need the rules for determining morality. We hate rules - we only like them when they suit us in which case we only like the fun we find in them not them. Both caring about rules and caring about good is selfish so we can't compromise either. We are selfish in all that we do.

Desire proves we are egoistic creatures with a potential to go beyond egoism to egotism.

When you do good for another, do it out of the desire to fulfil yourself and you will be happy because if you want something else you might not get it! This is as much selfishness as being kind to them for what you can get off them say money or whatever. Why? Because you don't want the money in itself, you only want the fulfilment you think you will get from the money. You go after the same fulfilment if you do it to fulfil yourself or to get future fulfilment. There is no difference in that way. Do it to fulfil yourself and that is selfishness. Do it to get money etc and that is still selfishness. But the first is the strongest and best selfishness for it is more effective. The more selfish you are then the better! If you do not do it to fulfil yourself then you are being a pushover and urging the person to abuse you. That is actually a warped form of selfishness too. Everything we do is selfish. Altruism is nonsense.

I always have reasons for doing what I do. These reasons are always my reasons. Even if I say I do something because X wants it done, the truth is that I am still doing it for my reasons. The doormat consents to how she or he is treated and that is the cause of her or his being downtrodden not the person who wants to misuse her or him. So all you do is for your own reasons. But if I do something for my reasons it does not follow that I do it for me. But my reasons are expressions of the character and personality I am at that time. They are me. Strictly speaking, there are no reasons but personal characteristics that I call reasons. So no matter how altruistic the thing I do seems to be, I do in fact do it for me. I am an egoist. Therefore egoism is true.
 
To do something to satisfy a feeling would be egoism. What if you do the thing though you feel nothing? To feel nothing is to still feel. Its a feeling. We call it feeling numb. To do something because you feel nothing would still be egoism.
 
Many of us want egoism to be true though we don't admit it. We like to feel we want to do everything we do. This desire alone would mean that even if we can be altruists we can't expect people to think we do it very often!

 

A desire is just a desire - it is not good or bad.  It just is.  It is what it results in that is called good or bad.  A desire is about your wish for your fulfilment so a desire to help another is as self-centred as a desire to destroy them. Why did I act? Because I wanted to fulfil my desire.

Proof for Psychological Egoism
 
Catholic philosophers know Psychological Egoism is true and say so but always go back on it and distract us with other ideas to keep us from dwelling on it. They teach that when you do bad it is principally the good in the bad act that you want and you are only using the bad as a means to the good. And the purpose of it all is happiness. When you die for somebody it is because you are happy to at least under the circumstances. So if you were not happy to die for the person you wouldn’t. It is about you not them at all though the results look as if it is about them. You don’t will the death but some good. You cannot will somebody else’s good and not your own. That would deny the desire for happiness. You cannot be altruistic because you chiefly do the act because you are happy to.
 
“If evil be done, it is done as leading to good, or as bound up with good, or as itself being good for the doer under the circumstances; no man ever does evil for sheer evil’s sake. Yet evil may be the object of the will, not by itself, nor primarily, but in a secondary way as bound up with the good that is willed in the first place.” (page 3).
 
“All the human acts of all men are done for the one (subjective) last end just indicated.  This end is called happiness” (page 4)
 
Quotes from Moral Philosophy, Stonyhurst Philosophical Series, Father Joseph Rickaby, SJ, Longmans, Green and Co, London 1912.
 
If I am honest, I do everything I do because I feel like it. If I help others it is because I wish to. It is about my wish and not them. Those who disagree are confusing the benefit for others with the wish to commit the act of benefiting others. The two are separate.
 
Let’s prove it.
 
Gratitude is appreciation. It is taking delight in somebody doing something good for you. It takes delight in them and in the act they performed. Love in the final analysis is really gratitude. This is a reason why we cannot believe people who claim to love evil people and hate their evil deeds. But that aside, gratitude is joy that you got something. If you do something for another - if you give away your last penny - for love then it follows you are really doing it for yourself.
 
If I value money my act is to value. The money is incidental. How do I know? Because if I value people my act is to value. In both I value, my action is to value. It is exactly the same act but it is only what is valued that is different. If I throw a snowball my act is to throw. The exact same act will throw a football. The act is the same – it is only what is thrown that is different. So it makes no sense to say that to value money is selfish and that it is unselfish to value people. The act is exactly the same, the valuing is exactly the same but it is only the focus of the valuing that is different. It would make as much sense to say that tasting wine was good but tasting milk was bad. Or that tasting wine was unselfish and tasting milk was selfish. Tasting is just tasting just as valuing is just valuing. If tasting something in particular has good results or if valuing something in particular has good results, if they help people better than not doing them would, that is a by-product of the tasting or valuing. People will value what they want or are pre-determined by their psyche to value. It is the valuing that is important – not what is valued. Therefore if I am selfish for valuing money I am just as selfish for valuing people.
 
There is no sacrifice, for what I do I want to do under the circumstances. When I say I don’t want to do it, I mean that I am getting little pleasure out of it but nevertheless I still want to do it enough to be able to do it. My will is just about me meaning that if I do wrong it is a mistake and not a sin or crime. The will is about gratifying desire not about evil and good which are the consequences of the intent but not the intent itself. When I kill a person, I don't do it to take away their life but to fulfil my wish to end their life. Life is easier when we remember that what we do, we do for ourselves even if we are not keen on it and it gives us a sense of comfort. The doctrine of free will takes that away from us. People never do wrong because they deny their responsibility – they do it because they fail to see how useless and unattractive wrong is. The doctrine of free will suggests otherwise which is why the doctrine is a slander against us that we will not stand for.
 
Leaving aside the question of free will, when we choose we respond to the feeling, “I want to do this”. Even when we choose to die for others it is to indulge this feeling of wanting. It makes bad consequences seem unreal so that even suffering and death isn’t enough to stop us. We switch off parts of our minds and the urge for self-preservation to do it. Knowing that how can anybody say we are altruistic? If we are not in this thing, how can we be in anything else?
 
Altruism is contradictory. Does a wife want her husband to take her on holiday just for her though he hates the idea? She wants him to get something out of it. She wants him to think of her as an extension of himself – part of himself so that in serving her and loving her it is the same thing as loving and serving himself. When she is happy, he is happy.
 
Duty is the idea that you must do certain actions and be compelled if necessary. It is based on the concept of justice and fairness. Altruists say we have a duty to be altruistic. They want to force certain actions on us. If altruism is so great then it should be freely engaged in. The duty concept denies this freedom so it denies altruism. Duty makes more sense in an egoistic context where you can force a person on pain of jail to refrain from stealing. Altruism embraces suffering. If suffering is that great then the concept of duty is no use for duty threatens suffering on those who shirk their duties.
 
I go into a burning house to save a child and I die. Altruism says that if I did this for the child without thinking of myself it is great. If I do it because I want to die a hero then its selfish, its not altruism. Its selfish for helping the child is not what matters to me. If I do it for the child while believing that altruism is an unnatural perversion or deceit what then? Then I must be selfish as well for I am doing what I think is wrong. The altruist only assumes that going into the house is proof of altruistic behaviour. It is not evidence for altruistic behaviour. Also, when we panic we are not thinking properly. Impulse takes over. It is the same as temporary insanity. And nobody says you are being altruistic when you are insane! No evidence for altruistic behaviour can be found by observing the allegedly altruistic behaviour of others.
 
If a priest gives his life for a layman to live he is an altruistic saint. But is he really when he refused to live to bring people to God?
 
If a father of three burns to death while trying to save his own father who had only a few years left he is supposedly an altruist. But he wasn’t thinking of his own children. He was no altruist. And people take crazy risks just for fun. We don't call that altruism. Whoever runs into an exploding house to save a stranger must enjoy the experience in a sense. It is not altruism.
 
Altruism is intrinsically laced through and through with vicious sickening hypocrisy. It has more in common with egotism than egoism. To praise the “altruists” we have met is to selfishly ignore the people hurt by what they did. In altruistic philosophy, praising altruism is more important than people. Altruists claim to love the sinner but hate his or her sin meaning that they pretend the person is not in some sense the sin. If the person is not the sin, the person is not his or her goodness either so we can love a person's goodness not the person.
 
Only the individual person can decide if altruism is possible. Only the individual person can examine her or his motives to determine if altruism counts among them. You cannot believe in altruism unless you verify it for yourself by examining yourself. The human heart is very deceitful. We can think we are doing something altruistically and then discover we had a motive that was egoistic or evil that we couldn’t see.
 
The examples show that altruism has to be believed in as moral to be altruism. Altruism is only possible if you believe that it is right. So it is right to destroy yourself for others. Altruism fans might say that the good is not in the destroying of yourself but in the helping of others. But they are deceiving. If altruism which means hurting yourself for others is good, and good done for a bad motive is evil as they say, then clearly destroying yourself to help others is good.
 
If I know it’s the last moment of my existence and I want to drink a glass of whiskey, the last drop in the house, and give the glass to a stranger and make myself unhappy altruists think that is wonderful. So altruism must see self-destruction as good for I destroyed a part of myself when I carried out that action. Though my own existence and consciousness is the one thing I cannot doubt, I am asked to put a being who existence I am less sure of before myself. I mean I am asked to put what is less certain before what is certain though commonsense says what is more certain comes first. The altruists will reply that you didn’t give away the whiskey to destroy yourself but to give to another. The answer is that you did it for both reasons. Giving the whiskey away wasn’t as important as taking it yourself. And if everybody is altruistic life cannot function so it is destructive. You cannot run a business to make money for yourself if you give away all your goods and services for nothing. Yet altruists see the person who gives all away for others as the ideal, the true good person.
 
St Martin de Porres chose to be a Dominican lay-brother rather than be ordained for he didn’t feel worthy of the priesthood. Altruists applaud this. Indeed a true altruist would have to turn down benefits and privileges to let others have them instead. So a man thinking he is not as good as other people and who approves of worse than him going for ordination is to be applauded? His lack of self-love is applauded. If he thought he wasn’t worthy and shouldn’t be ordained then how could he sincerely have thought that other men were right to go forth for ordination? Others would say that Martin turned down the priesthood and the power to bring others to salvation so he wasn’t an altruist. Do you see how nobody agrees on what counts as altruistic behaviour? It’s all guessing.
 
Altruism proposes that we must hate the sin but not the sinner. We must judge the sin not the sinner. Why? The answer usually give is that it is altruistic to show great kindness to those who hate you and who are conspiring against you or those who don't deserve it. But in abusive relationships what happens is this. When the man verbally abuses the woman and tells her that she is ugly, fat and how dissatisfied he is with her or hits her he will say something along the lines of, “I don’t want to hurt you but I do but you know I love you.” In other words, “I am a good person who does bad things,” which is the same as, “Love me even if you hate the bad things I do.” We know how bad it is for the woman to believe him.
 
We cannot hate the sin without hating the sinner for the sin reveals the sinner. It tells us what kind of person the sinner is. There is no way we can pretend the sin is separate from the sinner. There is no sin without a person becoming a sinner. If the sin can be separated from the sinner and thought of differently then so can the good done by a person be separated from the person. If you say to a sinner, “I have nothing against you. You are a wonderful faultless person. It is just this sin of yours I have the problem with, not you” they would understandably laugh at you.
 
Altruism is based on lies and self-deceit. It is impossible for that reason. If you really lovingly sacrifice for somebody you won't be pretending that if you say judge them or ostracise them, that it is their sin you are judging or ostracising and not them!
 
All intentions are ultimately to do with what you want to do. You may intend to buy a car or give to the poor but ultimately you intend to do what you want. It is what you want that you care about. What you want may take different forms such as wanting the car or to see the poor better off but it is wanting all the same. If you see blue and you see pink after it, it means that you have the one sight. You don't have one kind of sight for blue and another for pink. Seeing is just seeing and wanting is just wanting.
 
You are called an egotist if you sacrifice the love of family and friends for something less beneficial such as money. If you willingly sacrifice money for the family and friends you are called an altruist. This is ignoring intentions and going by results. The intention in both is exactly the same – to do what you want to do. The results have nothing to do with it. If desiring to sacrifice for money makes you selfish so does desiring to sacrifice for the family and friends. To say that desiring money to give it away is altruism and to desire it to have it yourself is not is really saying altruism and egoism are not judged by motives but by results. It is like saying that tasting sugar is altruism and tasting salt is egoism. Altruists don’t commend the suicide victim who kills himself because he believes everybody would be better off if he died. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that altruists are really do-gooders.
 
Here is an example of human hypocrisy. A man is captured by dangerous psychopathic terrorists. Three men risk their lives trying to save him. The three men will be praised for doing this and encouraging each other to do it even if they are the ones that wind up dead. They are praised for putting one life before three lives. They are called altruists. This altruism is certainly selfish. It proves how altruism is just self-will in a new guise. If you intend to be selfish, it might be irrational to be selfish that way. So are we to pretend it is altruism just because it is irrational selfishness? If the men risked their lives to get money they would be called selfish even though they are risking as well. So the fact that they are risking for another man proves nothing.
 
If God appeared to you and asked you to suffer excruciatingly forever just to save two strangers from this torment, would you do it? You certainly would not though it is easy to kid yourself that you would when you know there is no chance that God will appear with such an offer. Yet you know one person suffering this torment is better than two suffering it and you won’t do what altruism says is the right thing. It follows then that the good you do is done more because it suits you than for any real concern for good. In other words, you are an egoist.
 
Altruism knows that when you look after your children it is because you see and feel they are a part of you that you do so. You wouldn’t care as much about the children if they were somebody else’s. Nature causes you to feel that way. It causes you to value them as if they were extensions of yourself. Altruism then undeniably has to deny that having children and caring for them is as good as looking after strangers. We know that caring for children is best so we know egoism is true and desirable.
 
Altruism requires free will. If a force causes us to act without concern for ourselves then it is not us that is acting and we are not altruists. We are just carried along by a power while we imagine and feel we are free.
 
Altruism also requires a strong belief in free will. The stronger your belief in free will the stronger will be your altruism. I mean that the more belief you have in free will the more altruistic your helping the poor is than a person who does exactly the same as you but who has less faith in free will. The more evidence you have for free will the better. But there is unfortunately no evidence for free will at all. Animals feel as free as us but they don't have the power of free will.
 
Psychological egoism is more believable than psychological altruism. It is more evident that people may be egoists than that they may be altruists.
 
I do everything I do because I desire to even under the circumstances. And when I say I don’t, I only mean I am responding to my desire to do it though I also have a desire not to do it. If this does not prove psychological egoism to be true, it certainly proves that it is probably true.
 
Altruism is freely giving yourself to others. If you die for others and are under the influence of drugs, the drugs made you sacrifice yourself. That is not recognised as altruism but as egoism or more accurately as egotism. The distinction between selflessness and non-selflessness is totally arbitrary in this case. The vast majority of actions classified as altruistic are really acts of egoism or egotism.
 
Psychological egoism as a theory has a right to be accepted if it is coherent and it is. It should be respected as a legitimate theory and it should be admitted by those who cannot accept it that it could be true.
 
The only thing I know 100% is that I exist now. I cannot be as sure that I existed a second ago. Perhaps it was a dream or an illusion. I am less sure that other people are not dreams or visions than I am that I existed a second ago. The people I see in my dreams seem as real as the people I meet every day. I create my belief in other people. To serve them is to serve my belief not them though they may benefit. If I create an imaginary friend and believe in that friend I am called self-centred. If I come to believe that giving all my money away to the poor will plunge me into an ecstasy of delight that is worth it I am self-centred. I am not doing it for the ecstasy but for the belief I will get the ecstasy. Therefore all my actions for others are self-centred.
 
To serve my belief is to serve myself for my belief makes me what I am. Belief is about me. Psychological egoism is true. Case closed.
 
Altruism says you should help others without thinking of yourself. Egoism is the idea that you help others because doing so is its own reward for you. Egotism says you should help others to get a reward such as money or to feel good after.
 
If you ask somebody to be altruistic to you, you would be considered selfish for you wish to gain at their expense. And the altruist is being selfish in urging you to be selfish or encouraging you by doing what you ask. Altruism is a lie. Altruism is evil and therefore selfish.

 

Conclusion

 

Everything points to us being psychological egoists.  Desire is the mark of that beast.