Psychological Egoism is correct

Psychological egoism is the view that all of our actions are motivated by what we take to be in our own self-interest. If you think about it, psychological egoism is a denial of libertarian free will because according to libertarianism, no antecedent conditions, including our own desires, are sufficient to determine our choices, which means that for whatever choice we make, we could have chosen differently even if our desires and motivations had been exactly the same. So any argument for libertarian freedom is an argument against psychological egoism.But I don't subscribe to libertarian freedom. I just put that there for curiosity's sake.In tonight's debate, I'm going to defend two basic contentions. First, there are no good reasons to think that psychological egoism is true. Second, there is good reason to think psychological egoism is false.Concerning that first contention, unless we could look at every choice that every person has ever made, we're not in a position to say that the motivation behind each of those choices was self-interested. One could, however, make an inductive case for psychological egoism if one had a sufficiently large sampling of choices that all turned out to be self-interested. But no such study has ever been conducted. Pro appeals to the frequent observation of self-interested behavior, but that does not warrant the universal claim that all of our actions are motivated by self-interest. There's no doubt that people often behave according to self-interest, but psychological egoism makes a stronger claim than that. Psychological egoism claims that all of our actions are motivated by self-interest.Pro says that apparently altruistic behavior is often revealed to be self-interested. A mistake psychological egoist typically make is confusing the result of an action with its cause. For example, if you help an old lady across the street and feel good about yourself as a result, the psychological egoist will say the good feeling was what actually motivated your action, not the well-being of the old lady. While the psychological egoist can point out self-interested benefits of otherwise altruistic actions, they cannot actually show that the benefit was what motivated the action to begin with. That's just something they assume.Concering my second contention, if I can show just one example of an action whose primary motivation is not self-interested, then I will have refuted psychological egoism.Consider this scenario. A man buys a life insurance policy that costs him $20/month for the rest of his life. When he dies, it pays his family $200,000. So he doesn't get anything from the life insurance policy. Rather, it costs him. The reason he gets it is so his family will be taken care of.Now, a psychological egoist will say that because the man loves his family, he wants them to be taken care of, and buying the life-insurance policy gives him a psychological pay-off. The pay-off for the man is that he feels comforted by the fact that his family will be taken care of when he's gone, and perhaps he feels a sense of pride in sacrificing for them. Since the man gets no material benefit from paying for the life-insurance policy, the only possible benefit he could get is psychological.So, let's suppose that there's a pill the man could take that would give him those exact same feelings except that the pill is free. So the man has a choice:A. Pay $20/month and get a psychological pay-off.B. Save $20/month and get the exact same psychological pay-off.Now, if you offered any man this choice, he would choose option A every time. The reason is because the psychological pay-off is not actually his real motivation for getting the life insurance policy. His real motivation actually is the interest of others, namely his family. The fact that he gets a psychological-pay is the result of his action, not the cause of it.This scenario disproves psychological egoism.