Originally I wasn't going to post here since Meru covered my view completely (surprisingly). But after actually reading through this whole thread instead of skimming it, I'm going to pointlessly argue some things others brought up.

So unless you're bored, there's really no point in reading this.
Phoenecia
But there's a flaw in the two egoisms; doing 'bad' things can sometimes give a person a 'good' feeling. Let's say you shoplift from a store. No one knows you did it and you walk away with several chocolate bars (or whatever), and you may end up feeling good because you benefitted from stealing. Psychologically, this may be a reason as to why people commit crimes or bully others; they don't do 'bad' things just for the hell of it, but rather they do them because it gives them good feelings such as satisfaction, accomplishment, or...whatever that feeling is when you're having fun (I can't think of a word for it at the moment sweatdrop ).
I disagree. In Crime & Human Nature: The definitive Study of Causes of Crime people committed crimes because when faced with the logical choice of which was more beneficial to them (committing the crime or going about getting the chocolate bars legally), committing the crime posed less risk.

You take that same person who doesn't have candy bars, so goes to the store to steal them, the most likely case is because they want candy bars and don't have the money to buy them, or have the money but don't want to "waste it" on "expensive" candy bars(which would still, effectively, equate to not having the money to spend).

In stealing the candy bars, the person has made a logical decision that the risk in stealing the candy bars vs. buying them, that stealing poses less risk.

Why is this? Well, it could be that if a kid steals candy bars, they most likely, when caught, will get a small speech and slap on the wrist. But if you were to buy the candy bars, that is money out of their pocket they probably should have spent on something else. Since that money, to that person, is worth more than a potential slap on the risk, the crime poses less risk.

Add to this the potential reward, where stealing would be candy bars and saving money, and buying would mean you only have the candy but lost the money, the crime would, in that person's mind, be the most wise decision.

While the "good" feeling may be because they got away with the crime, the reasons behind the crime were not because of the feeling itself(in most circumstances), but rather the amount of reward and risk when compared.

This matches quite effectively into Psychological Egoism, but also, since this [I believe] was your point, into Ethical egoism - The person carefully balanced the two choices and picked the "best" one based on their [personal] survival.
Phoenicia
Don't believe me? A small plane crashes in the middle of the wilderness and the only two survivors are a sickly 12-year-old boy and the 40-year-old pilot who was badly injured in the crash. The pilot is unable to move, the boy can't speak English and his illness causes him a lot of pain. But for 15 days, the boy went out to gather food for the pilot even though his disease worsened. The boy eventually died, but the pilot survived and was rescued. Why did the boy do that? He certainly didn't do it because there was a reward; if he hadn't done all that for the man, he probably would've survived. He probably didn't do it because he believed the pilot would return the favor someday; chances were, they'd never see each other again if they survived. So why? Maybe he thought the pilot had a better chance of surviving than he did? Even then, why risk your life for someone else?

This is an extreme case, but it's a good example of ideal altruism.
I beg to differ. Life is always full of choices, and depending on the boy's case, he made one that benefitted him. I haven't personally heard this story, so I don't know the choice he made, but I can hypothesize.

The most likely reason the boy did this would probably be because his parents died in the plane crash with everyone else. Given his illness, if he were rescued and his parents(and possibly no other relatives in the country) were not around, what would happen to him? Well, depending on the country, he'd (a) Die anyway with no medical help, because they don't know what's wrong with him (b) He would have to deal with a brand new family (c) he was illegal, and would be deported into a worse situation than the adoptive family (d) he would have to learn english, and did not want to go through that (e) he had already received information prior to this flight he didn't have long to live.

In most of those cases, he helped the pilot knowing he wouldn't survive. This would effectively relate to committing suicide, he just did a more "morally right" version of it. He didn't want to deal with what situations would arise if he were rescued, so he did something to pass by the time while he died. Or, he could've helped the pilot hoping the pilot would heal enough to bring the kid to safety.

Or maybe, he was hoping they both would survive and the pilot would convince the rescuers/government to not deport him since he helped save a whitey. We couldn't say for sure since we don't have the article, but those reasons above are still far from ideal altruism.
Quote:
You'd lend someone money or volunteer because it makes you feel good
Sometimes, maybe. But most of the time, at least for the lending of money, it's for a different reason alltogether.

Have you ever lent someone money knowing they wouldn't pay you back and felt good about it? I know I haven't; I'm left with feeling like I did something stupid and the person I gave money to is a selfish little b*****d. So why did I give money to that person in the first place?
I don't want them to bother me about the money. If I say someone can't borrow money from me, I'm inviting into an ardous argument about why I don't trust them, why they need the money, and basically a lot of huge complaints If this were in a public situation rather than a personal one (Public as in, a school, for example) I would also be inviting a reputation of being a selfish, greedy a*****e because I do not lend people, even friends, money. SO I lent the money to avoid those situations. That was selfish.

In the case of volunteering, if you volunteer you can(IIRC) get tax breaks. You also get respect and climb the social ladder. Maybe not where you volunteer, but in other social places. For example, the workplace or religious institution. You can also put volunteering on your resume. Volunteering is the same as normal job expierence on a resume, and since a lot of jobs these days are requiring five years of expierence, sometimes the only way to get that expierence is if you volunteer.

And it is in my personal expierence that most people volunteer when they are religious. They don't volunteer because it just makes them feel good. They volunteer because, to them, it puts them on a higher plane and allows them more freedom in their religion, absolving their sins, and granting them a greater chance of salvation and entering heaven or it's equivalent. Because of those reasons, it feels good.
Quote:
parents saving their kids is a more common example of idealistic altruism
Not really. While not consciously thinking it, subconsciously the main(argumentally, only) reason parents sacrifice themselves for their kids is so their progeny will live on. Their kid is the heir to their family throne. They(the parents) want to have their own blood and family living in this world, and they can't do that if they don't have someone in their family living.
There's also the pain an effort of raising the kid to take into account - if you just built a model plane, and it took you a few years of blood sweat and tears, you'd be extremely broken up about it, wouldn't you? Not because the plane was incredibly important, but because once that plane is broken, several years of hard, time consuming work, just got wasted. In an instant, they all meant nothing. Raising a kid is the same way. And kids are damn hard to raise, not to mention giving birth too. I know I would never want to risk having one in the first place.
Phoenicia
For humans, the world is different. Humans can think for themselves; we know what's perceived by society to be 'right' and 'wrong'. Whether people choose to accept it or not, the law and other moral codes were created for a reason; to preserve and maintain order so that our species will continue to thrive. Breaking the law, in a way, could be seen as a 'threat' to humanity's survival in the sense that it disrupts order. [this makes humans different from animals]
Then what of herd animals? Stallions in a herd of horses keep their herd in order by punishing those who do "bad" things, and rewarding those who do good ones. You also have wolves, chickens, hyenas, lions, and most other animals(mainly mammals) that have a social order or "pecking order" just like humans. In Wolf packs, for example, based on your 'rank', you are given a specialized job. Alpha protects the pack, Beta protects the kid and baby sits, all the way down to Omega who basically serves as entertainment for the rest of the pack. Even though they were the lowly Omega, their death has been mourned by other members of the pack before, if you've seen an in-depth documentary where an Omega happens to die.

But that's beside the point. Especially int he case of herd animals, animals also have order and a sort of "government". That's not specific to humans. Hell, look at bees and ants, those are fine examples right there, too.
FortenraAskasa
Anyways, sex brings pleasure because sex brings reproduction, same with love (to an extent), and is natures way to trick us into to making babies.
If sex were only for reproduction(in the human case), it has a surprising failure rate[for fertilization] compared to other species. Resource. It's about cloning, but since it still deals with fertilization, and it was the only thing I could find worth anything on the internet(books are so much better for scientific studies), it'll work.
Phoenicia
Let me put it this way: both humans and animals are capable of killing, but most average humans feel regret when they do this (if they don't, then they're probably sociopathic >_>). Animals kill and are killed because it's the way nature works; animals are food for other animals. Although humans kill, there are times when it's justified (such as in war or in self-defense) and there are times when it's not. Humans also hesitate to perform an action such as killing another human. Why? Empathy, plain and simple.
That's such fallacy. When an animal kills, it's for food usually. Humans kill things every day, too. We kill ants and weeds because they ruin are yards or "arne't pretty". We kill bugs in our house because they're "ugly" and eat our food. We kill trees for paper and furniture, we kill viruses and tumors(debatable on whether they fit the definition of "living organism") because they hurt us, and a lot of us kill a chicken baby every day to have a nice breakfast. Does anybody have any empathy for those killings? Not likely, unless you're shackled down by a religion or belief that shelters that morality.

What you've basically alluded to here is that all animals are cannibals. Cannabilism is very low in most species, and it's because eating eachother is unhealthy. But who's to say an animal doesn't feel empathy for it's packmate, either? Hell, even in zombie movies, zombies don't eat eachother, and anything they kill is for food. So obviously, humans can be the only ones who have empathy, right? I mean, we're obviously crying over the mama chicken who suffered an abortion just so you could have a nice morning meal. Your argument is so full of flaw, I don't even know why you brought it up, because from your other posts, I know you're smarter than that.
Phoenicia
If killing a random rich person would benefit you, would you still do it if there was no law stating you couldn't? If you had no empathy or compassion, you'd kill them without a second thought simply because you'll be benefitting from their death. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, an animal will kill another animal if the other's death will benefit itself. With empathy, a person can relate to another person's fear or pain; those feelings would cause conflict and cause hesitation.
I refer you to my crime risk vs. benefit argument. If there were no law sayign you couldn't, you probably would. But on the flip-side, morals and empathy are learned traits from childhood. Here's why:
Peles Tears
I can see an argument here but I'm not sure its the whole answer. When we are children we do things for some kind of tangible reward. weather it be we get a sticker or candy for using the bathroom when we are potty training or when we get a bit older a pizza party for getting good grades. for the most part in normal non-extreme households children are rewarded for doing the right thing and punished in some way for doing the bad thing.
As we become more self aware and adult like our rewards and punishments become less tangable. When you get all the work done on time at college or at your work you get the good feeling of accomplishment which is an intagable reward. Where as if you slack off you get yelled demoted and maybe even fired. Which again leeds to an intangable punishment.

This is just like Pavlov's bell. There's a dog who gets fed when a bell is rung. Eventually it gets to the point where the bell can be rung and no food present, but the dog still drools. This is likewise for humans and feelings of "good" or "bad" in dealing with 'moral' situations.

When you helped someone out when you were a kid, it was socially a good moral, so you would get rewarded for it(in talking about an average society). Fast forward ten years or so, you no longer get thephysical reward, but you still get the feeling of the reward - much like when the bell is rung, but there isn't any food there.

This goes likewise for "bad" things and things requiring empathy. Say you hit your sister when you were oh so little because you were mad at her. Your parent(or whomever is in charge) explains to you that this is bad because you just hurt your sister. You shouldn't be hitting people because that's morally wrong, and moreso, can't you see you hurt your sister? Think about how your sister feels! Now go apologize!
You feel bad because you realize what you did is morally wrong, but you also feel bad because you have now learned that what you did hurt your sister. Even if you don't get yelled at for a bad thing in the future, the feelings of the other times when you have been reprimanded for "bad" things are still subconsciously there, and that is why they come back and make you feel guilty for whatever you did. Not because of some God-given remorse, but because your parents told you it was bad(very simplistically speaking).