James Rachels, in an essay that takes as its title the theory's name, outlines the three arguments
most commonly touted in its favor:[12]

 "The first argument," writes Rachels, "has several variations, each suggesting the same
general point:[13]
o "Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs.
Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those wants and needs
effectively. At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only
imperfectly, and we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is
reasonable to believe that if we set out to be 'our brother's keeper,' we would
often bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good."[4]
o To give charity to someone is to degrade him, implying as it does that he is
reliant on such munificence and quite unable to look out for himself. "That,"
reckons Rachels, "is why the recipients of 'charity' are so often resentful
rather than appreciative."[14]
 Altruism, ultimately, denies an individual's value and is therefore destructive both to
society and its individual components, viewing life merely as a thing to be sacrificed.
Philosopher Ayn Rand is quoted as writing that, "[i]f a man accepts the ethics of altruism,
his first concern is not how to live his life but how to sacrifice it."[15] Moreover, "[t]he basic
principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to
others is the only justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral
duty, virtue or value." Rather, she writes, "[t]he purpose of morality is to teach you, not to
suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."[16]
 All of our commonly accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking
always the truth to keeping promises, are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-
interest.
 It has been observed, however, that the very act of eating (especially, when there are
others starving in the world) is such an act of self-interested discrimination. Ethical
egoists such as Rand who readily acknowledge the (conditional) value of others to an
individual, and who readily endorse empathy for others, have argued the exact reverse
from Rachels, that it is altruism which discriminates: "If the sensation of eating a cake is
a value, then why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you
to achieve in the stomach of others?"[17] It is therefore altruism which is an arbitrary
position, according to Rand.

Criticism[edit]
It has been argued that extreme ethical egoism is self-defeating. Faced with a situation of limited
resources, egoists would consume as much of the resource as they could, making the overall
situation worse for everybody. Egoists may respond that if the situation becomes worse for
everybody, that would include the egoist, so it is not, in fact, in their rational self-interest to take
things to such extremes.[18] However, the (unregulated) tragedy of the commons and the (one
off) prisoner's dilemma are cases in which, on the one hand, it is rational for an individual to seek to
take as much as possible even though that makes things worse for everybody, and on the other
hand, those cases are not self-refuting since that behaviour remains rational even though it is
ultimately self-defeating, i.e. self-defeating does not imply self-refuting. Egoists might respond that a
tragedy of the commons, however, assumes some degree of public land. That is, a commons
forbidding homesteading requires regulation. Thus, an argument against the tragedy of the
commons, in this belief system, is fundamentally an argument for private property rights and the
system that recognizes both property rights and rational self-interest—capitalism.[19] More generally,
egoists might say that an increasing respect for individual rights uniquely allows for increasing
wealth creation and increasing usable resources despite a fixed amount of raw materials (e.g. the
West pre-1776 versus post-1776, East versus West Germany, Hong Kong versus mainland China,
North versus South Korea, etc.).[20]
It is not clear how to apply a private ownership model to many examples of "Commons", however.
Examples include large fisheries, the atmosphere and the ocean.[21][22]
Some perhaps decisive problems with ethical egoism have been pointed out.
One is that an ethical egoist would not want ethical egoism to be universalized: as it would be in the
egoist's best self-interest if others acted altruistically towards him, he wouldn't want them to act
egoistically; however, that is what he considers to be morally binding. His moral principles would
demand of others not to follow them, which can be considered self-defeating and leads to the
question: "How can ethical egoism be considered morally binding if its advocates do not want it to be
universally applied?"[23]
Another objection (e.g. by James Rachels) states that the distinction ethical egoism makes between
"yourself" and "the rest" – demanding to view the interests of "yourself" as more important – is
arbitrary, as no justification for it can be offered; considering that the merits and desires of "the rest"
are comparable to those of "yourself" while lacking a justifiable distinction, R