And it goes something like this: Everything you do is for yourself. Even when you're doing something for someone else, you're still doing it for yourself. Altruism is subordinate to egoism. With every decision we make, we weigh the trade-offs. Whether we gain monetarily or emotionally, we ultimately choose the option that best suits the desire. Let me give you an example. Let's say that you need bread to eat, but you don't have the money to obtain it. You have two options: Steal the bread or leave the bread. You will either steal the bread to satisfy your hunger, or you will leave the bread because you feel that stealing is morally wrong. Stealing bread to satisfy a physical need is clearly rooted in egoism. Leaving the bread, on the other hand, is not so clearly self-rooted. You don't leave the bread simply because your moral code dictates you leave the bread -- you leave the bread because you don't want to feel the shame and guilt that comes along with stealing the bread, assuming you have a heavy conscious. [i]You[/i] feel bad that you're stealing from the victim, and that is why you leave the bread. The actual stealing of the bread does not make you feel guilty. If you leave emotion out of it, taking food that isn't yours is purely physical. You're trading satiety for emotional stability. Maintaining the feeling of good will is what makes leaving the bread the more desirable option. It's because you feel a horrible guilt when you hurt someone else that you feel bad hurting someone else. You want people to feel good because it makes [i]you[/i] feel good, by extension. Some of you won't get what I'm saying; it's difficult to clearly convey over text. But I firmly believe in this Machiavellian-esque idea.