The Question of Life “Freedom in Action” focuses on the concept of voluntarism and its role in people’s everyday life. It is essential to note that the ideas described in this chapter are closely interconnected with the theory of ethical egoism that implies framing normative ethics from the standpoint of personal interests. Therefore, the paper at hand is aimed at analyzing Savater’s insights on the voluntary choice of a person in the framework of the ethical egoism theory. First of all, it is essential to note that the theory of ethical egoism is widely criticized for the immoral connotations that it implies. Being normally opposed to the theory of ethical altruism, this theory is considered to be discriminating. In the meantime, it is important to note, that the theory’s key principle resides in the fact that a person is free to act by the inner desire that does not necessarily imply neglecting the desires of other people. One way or another, Savater unintentionally offered a much more consistent challenge to the relevant theory than common critics would provide. One of the most significant aspects that Savater eliminates is the distinction between “willing” and “wanting”. Thus, the author refers to the example of a captain that is throwing cargo overboard during the storm. Savater focuses on the point that the captain performed this action willingly as it was the only way to save his life. In the meantime, he did it without wanting to as the cargo cost a lot of money (Savater, 2002). This example challenges the theory of ethical egoism. On the face of it, the theory implies that every person has a moral right to act according to his or her inner interests. However, applying this theory to the described example, it is unclear what actions a person is supposed to take in case the interests contradict, and taking a particular action essentially means failing to meet one of these interests. Another critical problem that the author describes and that is closely connected to the theory of ethical egoism is the question of freedom. Thus, the first Savater’s (2002) definition of freedom says that it is “the capacity to act according to one’s desires” (95). From this perspective, a free person essentially becomes an ethical egoist as the principal of acting according to one’s desires is dominant for the latter. Meanwhile, the author provides an important clarification that the theory of ethical egoism lacks. Savater offers a framework for free activity – the author suggests limiting it to the category of possibility (Savater, 2002). In other words, to be free one needs to have a relevant chance apart from having an ability itself. Applying this framework to the theory of ethical egoism is rather problematic. The category of impossibility cannot be determined for this theory as its definition would essentially imply the introduction of some moral connotations, which contradicts with the core idea of the theory. Therefore, Savater’s reflection upon the nature of freedom lets one indicate a flaw in the analyzed theory that can be defined as a lack of limitations. Also, the chapter provides a detailed analysis of the nature of desires that constitute the core base of the theory of ethical egoism. A