This is made clear by the example that although I can expect not to get the Nobel Prize for this essay, my aim is not to avoid getting the Nobel Prize (though if you’d like to put my name forward, I wouldn’t fight you). The sympathy gratification argument relies on this premise since it presumes that because we do gratify our sympathetic desires every time we act “altruistically” our aim is really to gratify our sympathetic desires--if it did not presume this it would explicitly not rule out altruism. Yet, what proof is there that this was everyone’s aim (i.e. their actual motivation)? At some point, the psychological egoist, having no access to the person’s inner-world, will have to rely on expected outcomes of actions as proof which would be inadequate. The sympathy gratification argument therefore fails to make the motivation (i.e. the interest) identical with advantage and so altruistic action remains