ABSTRACT
A recurrent problem for moral philosophy, one that we have encountered several times already, is the question of how to bridge the gap between what is the case and what ought to be the case. As we saw in an earlier chapter, philosophical egoists think that in the case of the first person no problem exists; if I want or need something, then I have a reason to try to get it, and so, rationally I ought to. The altruist, by contrast, does seem to have a problem. How could it follow from the fact that you want or need something, that I ought to try and get it for you? How can the needs of others provide a compelling reason for me to act?
