Auguste Comte invented to term altruism, and defined it to mean “Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others” to “gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence” and therefore “cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such a notion rests on individualism.”

That is, an unlimited duty to help others. This sharply contrasts with moderating calls within this movement for self-care, except where that is consequential for others.

A rights, or even utilitarian argument against effective altruism is that any individual can matter for their own sake, as an end unto themselves - even a benefactor, you. 

To concede that the benefactor matters, is a step towards either a more egalitarian social movement than effective altruism, from ethical altruism to utilitarianism, or towards another frame of reference altogether.

Does man have a right to exist for his or her own sake? Or, is service to others, effective service to others, the only justification?

I do want to feel that I am morally the property of others—that others are my moral property. Until I meet an angel, or at least Brian Tomasik in person, I feel uneasy at the thought of a lifelong duty to serve as a principal moral right in the universe, or that intervening to encourage the fulfilment of this obligation is a healthy way to govern human relations. 

“At the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.” - French philosopher Simone Weil