It's not a stretch, and you know it. After all, I'm merely drawing logical conclusions based on Rand's own stated principles. It's beyond dispute that our happy Pharaoh -- being happy -- has met Rand's stated standards for the "highest moral good." Yet now you're apparently imposing some higher, and as yet undefined "highest good" on him. I'd say you're being a mystic, too.
Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do.
It's also beyond dispute that our Pharaoh, having died old, rich, and happy, suffered no adverse consequences from having violated Rand's allegedly absolute morality. Thus, reason tells us that Rand's morality obviously does not apply to Pharaoh. Thus, Rand's objectism is quite obviously not absolute -- if it were, our Pharaoh would inevitably have suffered.
Which brings us to this: The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics -- the standard by which one judges what is good and evil -- is man's life; or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.
Now, since Rand is adamant that man is an end in himself, Pharaoh's survival qua Pharaoh is his paramount concern. It does not matter how Pharaoh survives, so long as he does survive. This imperative can be observed empirically in nature, BTW. And man, being part of nature via Rand's Objective Reality, is subject to the same imperative.
Rand's morality applies to everyone, Pharoahs included.
You might notice, incidentally, that in her statement Rand uses the term "man" in the same global sense you have used it: we are all somehow covered by her statement as a group. This is not justified: Rand's philosophy quite specifically applies itself only to the individual, and our example of the Pharaoh demonstrates that Rand's morality is not absolute for individuals. For it to somehow be a global imperative, regardless of individual exceptions, requires us to retreat into some sort of species-based mysticism. (Which negates the idea that man is an end in himself.)
Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil.
According to this, small children and invalids are evil, because, not only do they not depend on reason for their survival, but they actually rely on the willingness of others to keep them alive. (I.e., their survival requires others to sacrifice themselves on their behalf....)
If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.
From this one must conclude that, from Rand's perspective, it is morally permissible for us to choose to starve small children and invalids by refusing to care for them. After all, their "choosing to live" is tantamount to a demand on us to keep them alive, which Rand says they cannot morally do. And since they can't care for themselves, and we're not morally required to keep them alive, it's not our problem if they die....
You'll no doubt argue that Rand wouldn't agree with this -- and I've no reason to dispute that. But note: to be against witholding food from small children and invalids requires us to acknowledge that those beings have some intrinsic moral worth, which has nothing at all to do with me, or my ability to reason. Their moral claims on me are imposed from outside. But how can this be? What is the basis for that moral claim? Alas, you must resort to "mysticism" in order to find the source of that imperative.
Following on into ethics, your ethical ideal appears to be altruism ... which Rand describes as follows ...
If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance).
1. Lack of self esteem -- since his first concern in the realm of values in not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.
2. Lack of respect for others -- since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help.
3. A nightmare view of existence -- since he believes that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe" where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality -- since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
Altruism, for what it's worth, is the demanded "self sacrifice" ethics underlying communism, socialism, modern liberalism and religions.
Whether you like it or not, philosophy is an individual matter.
Every person has a philosophy; it drives them to do what they do.
There is no such thing as a collective philosophy because there is no such thing as a collective mind.