" And each year, this relative is disappointed by the gifts given to her. Last year, my relatives and I all presented her with cash, so that she could choose her own gifts. I vividly recall her stating that it was the best gift she could receive, and it seemed that she was much happier when allowed to choose her own gift. However, I was just as happy when I received my gifts, and all I had to do was make it known to my relatives what I desired. So it seems to me that in order for any person to truly benefit from altruism, he must either (a) make his desires known, in detail, to those who seek to help him, or (b) help himself. It seems that ethical egoism becomes unnecessary in the case of (a). If we tell others what it is that we desire, then it is easy for others to help us achieve those desires. It is possible to know another's desires, all we have to do is ask. And in a perfect world, we could just ask, but more often than not, a person's desires are kept hidden for one reason or another. In the case of my relative, I don't think she really knew her desires until she was given the chance to fulfill them herself. So the first part of the argument seems to stand.
As for the idea that altruism is an intrusion into another's private affairs, consider Rachel's starving child argument. "Is the starving child in Ethiopia really harmed when we "intrude" into "her business" by supplying food?" While an altruist would definitely answer "no," an egoist might take a different approach. Although it would probably be better for the child to give it food, would an ethical egoist even consider the ideal? It seems to me that a true egoist would let the child provide for itself, just as the egoist provides for himself. This particular argument of Rachel's fails because it assumes that an egoist necessarily must care about starving children in Africa. A true egoist cares about himself, and believes that the child in Africa should procure his own meals or starve.
