[FreeKeys]

Randian atheists have no moral reference frame to temper their lusts and ambitions.

WRONG!!!! You are obviously making a bald assertion based upon either a misunderstanding of, or a blatant refusal to study, the facts. Rand's (VERY specific) Ethics have been spelled out in the first chapter of THIS book, as well as in this one, this one, and of course, in Galt's speech in ATLAS SHRUGGED. Not only are the ethics specific, but Rand soundly condemns all those who would subjectively make up their own "ethics" as excuses for bad behavior as they go along.

Morality has been the monopoly of mystics, i.e., of subjectivists, for centuries -- a monopoly reinforced and reaffirmed by the neo-mystics of modern philosophy. The clash between the two dominant schools of ethics, the mystical and the social, is only a clash between personal subjectivism and social subjectivism: one substitutes the supernatural for the objective, the other substitutes the collective for the objective. Both are savagely united against the introduction of objectivity into the realm of ethics.

Most men, therefore, find it particularly difficult to regard ethics as a science and to grasp the concept of a rational, objective ethics that leaves no room for anyone's arbitrary "decision."

-- Ayn Rand, here

[r9etb]

but Rand soundly condemns all those who would subjectively make up their own "ethics" as excuses for bad behavior as they go along.

LOL! That would mean so much more had not Ms. Rand made the following claim: "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Happiness is a highly subjective state -- what makes you happy today may be cause for extreme anger next year. To claim such a subjective standard as the "highest moral purpose" is in fact a case of making up your ethics as you go along.

And, of course, we could also take issue with Rand's statement of what constitutes the "highest moral purpose."

Indeed, to be utterly objective about it, our senses tell us that the "highest moral purpose" should probably be informed by what we can observe about the processes of biological evolution. The "highest moral purpose" is thus seen to be governed mainly by utilitarian, and therefore relative principles.

The fact is, Ayn Rand was a fraud. Her "absolute" principles aren't even self-consistent, and they're certainly not absolute.