It is moral to give to charity if it makes you happy to do so.
In a subsequent book "The Virtue of Selfisness " she goes in to this in great detail.
People, who know me, think I am the most generous person they have ever met. I tell them aucontraire, I am the most selfish person they will ever know. I only do what I do, because it makes me feel good.
Admittedly, this is a stretch critique as he pointed out himself, but there is enough truth in it to give one pause. He also said that in reading Atlas Shrugged he had this overwhelming feeling she was preaching to him: Oh, ye of little faith in Rand, get thee to a gas chamber! Go!
Rand's statement of virtues is unambiguous... "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge - Purpose, as his choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve - Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
This does not require that every man become the equivalent of Bill Gates to be moral - only that everyone strive to attain the best use of their own capabilities in reason, purpose, and self-esteem so that they can attain their own highest capacity for productiveness.
It also is quite clear that those who undercut reason, those who interfere with productiveness, those who live by the proceeds of the work of others when they could themselves produce, are acting immorally. Enslaving those of ability rather than those without ability does not add virtue to the act of enslavement.
Obviously, based on this, the ultimate legal, political, and economic system, the one which provides individuals with the greatest capacity to realize their potential, free from interference by others, is laissez-faire capitalism. In Rand's view, systems of taxation and redistribution are evil because they a) initiate the use of force, and b) require a man to live for the benefit of others at the expense of his own well-being and under the rule of force (which undercuts reason). Indeed, the only moral relationship in a social system is trade. Even when engaging in charity, a trade should be operating - as in Rearden's speech to his son on the virtue of gratitude.
The morality and practice of Objectivism can seem quite intimidating at first. But after reading Atlas Shrugged many times and following the literature of Objectivism (see the websites on Objectivism) and classical liberalism (the magazine "Ideas On Liberty" from the Foundation for Economic Education, and the magazine Reason are two of the best continuing sources of information for that), you will see that there are many reasons to believe that such a society would be both advanced and benevolent (in the sense that individuals of achievement, having generated enormous wealth in their unfettered activities, will lift those of less capability with them to a higher level of productiveness and wealth).
I hope this helps. You need to spend more time reading the vast literature which Rand and both Objectivists and libertarians have produced, at which point, you will hopefully understand more about the nature of Objectivism and classical liberalism and be able to see the benefits of that way of life.
Mark Cashman
It's funny that she has these views. Paul Johnson points out in "Birth of the Modern" (is that the title - I may be wrong here - probably am) that the left in Europe was really fond of the United States up until the 1840's. After that, because the heightened interest in slavery and capitalism, we fell out of favor with them.
You won't be able to in person. She died a few years ago.
Seems to me her greatest fault was her view on religion. Because she had a revelation about man's promise, I believe she ended up sort of worshipping man.
And something really weird happened when she had that volatile affair with Nathaniel Brandon which sent her husband into the depths of alcoholism.
Capitalism was her religion. Like all religious fanatics she was intolerant of other religions.
But gee-willikers, Ah does wish to know just as how all this "intellectual property" that Mz. Rand was such the fancy for, has 'zactly helped the music industry? When all they all abolished Napster has all they all made much since?
Ah does sees hows CD-ROM's are at bargain basement prices these days.
For those who agree with her, I ask how can the universe exist? To our best understanding, it started from a point explosion some billions of years ago. But if all the matter of the universe were gathered in one spot, it couldn't explode--it'd be a black hole. And what came before the big bang? And why did it colasce into such pretty galaxies, meta-galaxies, and meta-meta-galaxies? The theory that an intelligent God created the universe answers all of these questions. Combine this with the many fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, and you understand why became a Christian.