Impartiality, the principle that all individuals' interests should be given equal consideration, is a cornerstone in many ethical theories. Ethical egoism directly challenges this principle by asserting that one should primarily consider one's own interests. This subjective bias towards oneself is fundamentally at odds with impartiality, which requires no preferential treatment or discrimination. Ethical egoism, especially in its unrefined form, promotes a partiality that could justify actions detrimental to others if they benefit the individual, thereby undermining the equitable treatment that impartiality seeks to ensure. It casts doubt on the possibility of a moral framework where all persons' interests are treated as equally significant.

In business, ethical practices often require balancing self-interest with fairness, transparency, and consideration for stakeholders' interests. Ethical egoism can be partially reconciled with these practices if interpreted as rational self-interest, where the long-term benefit includes maintaining a good reputation, customer trust, and stable relationships with stakeholders. This requires adherence to ethical norms and regulations to ensure sustainable success. However, the reconciliation is not complete, as ethical egoism doesn't inherently value the interests of others unless it coincides with one's own. Therefore, a purely egoistic approach might conflict with ethical business practices that demand sacrificing immediate self-interest for the sake of fairness and broader societal good.

Ethical egoism seems to conflict with common conceptions of moral responsibility, which often include an element of altruism or concern for the welfare of others. Ethical egoism suggests that individuals are only morally responsible for themselves and their own interests. This framework could lead to a narrow interpretation of moral responsibility, where one's duty is primarily, if not solely, to oneself. This concept challenges broader societal expectations that moral responsibility includes a duty of care to others. However, proponents may argue that in pursuing one's enlightened self-interest, one inevitably must consider the wellbeing of others to some degree, as social and personal interests are frequently interconnected.

One might propose a refined version of ethical egoism called "rational ethical egoism," which posits that actions are morally right if they maximise one's self-interest in a rational, long-term sense. This variant aims to sidestep the problem of arbitrary interests by emphasising rational planning and consideration of long-term consequences over immediate gratification. It encourages individuals to pursue actions that harmonise personal goals with the interests of others, as relationships and societal approval are often instrumental to achieving long-term benefits. However, critics still argue that rational ethical egoism might not entirely avoid arbitrary interests since what is considered rational can vary greatly among individuals.

Ethical egoism, by its very nature, posits that the moral rightness of an action is determined by the extent to which it promotes an individual's self-interest. This focus on self-interest can be seen as inherently opposing the concept of universal moral rights, as ethical egoism does not necessarily require an individual to respect the rights of others if doing so is against one's own interests. This perspective challenges the traditional view of moral rights as innate and inalienable entitlements that protect individuals and ensure social harmony. Critics argue that ethical egoism could lead to a disregard for the rights of others, as actions are only measured against a single standard: whether they benefit the self.