Altruistic behavior is impossible. (psychological egoism)

I will approach round 2 from 2 directions. At first, I would like to point out that, in my opinion, choosing the least worse option doesn't make the choice good. If I have to choose between losing 100$ or loosing 200$, of course I would choose the 1st. But of course I don't like any of them. I am just choosing the one which is less worse, but I don't call it a decision out of self interest. I have been put in the position to make this choice, it's something I don't like, but I choose the one which is better for me. Self interest as per your definition is a concern for one's own advantage and well-being. There is no advantage in losing 100$ and it will not lead to my well-being. Yes choosing to loose 100$ instead of 200$ is a decision for better-being, but not for well being. Now when I choose to help someone by giving something in exchange, something that affects the way I live, for example I give a lung for a transplant to someone, that's altruism. You can't call it self-interest because that would imply that I have something to gain, while I only lose a lung. Yes, it can bring some moral satisfaction but it will bring a life-time of restriction, and in the long run there the moral satisfaction will erode. The same goes when giving your life for someone. Now regarding your arguments: - not all people that kill themselves are delusional. An old or a sick person can kill himself just because he believes he is a burden to others. So basically because he doesn't see any value in his remaining life. Again, I fail to see how this is self interest - the old/sick man stands nothing to gain, but only to lose out of both options - I don't know if I know anyone that would jump into a freezing like for a complete stranger, but I know that are people that would risk their lives for people they don't know. I am sure that an old person seeing an unknown child falling through the ice of a freezing lake is more probable to jump. Is again about the value of life. I hope I would when I grow old. It's a decision based not on the old man's interest but on the benefit of life/humankind/others however you call it. It is more probable for an old man to jump after a young man than vice-verse because the old man has little value for his life and so it's more probable that he sees the child's life as more valuable. So he makes a decision that is not related to him or his interest but to saving the life which is more valuable. For my last part, and this also concerns your 3rd argument, the one regarding helping someone in a non life threatening situation, I would like to prove 2 statements: 1. not all possible causes of an action are actual causes of an action 2. self-interest is just another cause First one should be easy. My grandmother doesn't eat meat. There could be many possible reasons: she doesn't like it, she is on a diet, she has restrictions from the doctor, she doesn't believe in killing animals to eat them, her religion forbids it etc. But the truth is that she doesn't eat meat because she is old and she doesn't have teeth. There are many possible causes to the fact, but there is only one which is the actual cause. The second one states that self interest is a cause like any other that motivates an action. For example if I help someone with his homework it may be for the self satisfaction that I get, it may be for the sense of pride, for the respect of others, but it can also be in order to help the guy out because he is my friend, it may be because I also want to teach him how to solve some problems so that he can solve them alone next, it may be that I am trying to help out the class by insuring that the overall average grade of the class is higher etc. If I donate money, it may be out of self interest, like I am trying to gain respect, or gain redemption from my sins, but another reason could also be pity - I pity the poor person cause he has nothing to eat. In all these situations self-interest is a component of the motivation and not the entire motivation. It's just a reason like any other reason. Considering the 2 points above, one cannot state the everything is based on self interest. Yes, when someone does something good you can always claim that a possible cause could be self interest. There is no debate here. I can just for example assume that no matter the way in which the person helps the other, someone else promised him 1000 billion $. And then, I can see self interest in everything. But this is just a possible cause. It doesn't make it the actual cause. It seems like you are arguing that self interest can always be seen as a possible cause of any person's actions, which is true, but the actual questions, the way I see it, is whether self interest is the actual cause of one's actions and here, of course, I disagree.