Randian Objective Ethics

On Page 15 of her book of ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand begins to lay out her argument for rational code of ethics: "This could hardly be called rational, yet most philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics--in the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his life's goals--man must be guided by something other than reason. By what? Faith--instinct--intuition--revelation--feeling--taste--urge--wish-whim. Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it 'arbitrary postulate' or 'subjective choice' or 'emotional commitment')--and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that three things barred from its field are: reason--mind--reality. If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and lower fun of hell, this is the reason." My response: Rand clear denounces previous ethical codes as bringing hell to earth, as backward, evil, shortsighted, irrational, groupist and stultifying for the individual agent. She is more right here than she is incorrect, but the philosophy of moderation cautions me to recognize that a holistic ethical standard requires emotion, subjectivity, religious sourcing and concern for the collective good, although as the minority emphasis. Can values be objective and rationally argued. Let us allow her to unfold her argument to the affirmative for these two concerns, and then let me decide if she is successful in her endeavors.