In this paper, I will prove that the Psychological Egoist theory is not all it’s made out to be by showing that there are exceptions to some human beings that do things for the sake of doing them instead of expecting something in return. The Psychological Egoist’s thesis states that we, as humans, only choose actions that will avoid a personal loss or gain some personal benefit. This can either be in the short term or the long term. If this theory is correct, it shows that humans cannot be altruistic because we don’t have a duty to be altruistic. The Ring of Gyges grants the owner the power to become invisible at will. Plato’s thought experiment asked the question whether an intelligent, rational human being would still be moral if he knew he would never be caught or punished. If someone wore the ring while knowing that he can safely be unjust, he would be unjust. This thought experiment supports the Psychological Egoist’s thesis because if there truly was a ring that could make us invisible and therefore not fear being caught or punished, we would only choose the actions that would avoid a personal loss or gain a personal benefit for us. For example, if a person was walking towards a party by a lake, and they saw a child drowning, they would not go and save the child. Since they’re wearing expensive clothes, their ring of invisibility would be put on right away so that not a single person would see them walk past the drowning child. This is wrong to do, however, it supports the thesis because by jumping into the probably freezing lake you not only ruin your expensive clothes, but also make yourself cold in the process. By saving this child, you do not avoid a personal loss and you do not gain a personal benefit, unless you get paid for your rescue. Therefore, it can be said that most humans, if given the choice to wear the Ring of Gyges, would most likely put it on because they only want to choose actions that will help them and not hurt them. Psychological Egoism, however, presents a significant challenge to our ordinary conception of morality because we would like to think that all humans would save the drowning child no matter what. But if humans only c