“For example, she named ‘The pursuit of his ... his own happiness’ as one of the ‘highest moral purpose[s] of his life.’ It’s not rational that a highly subjective mental/physical state should be the highest moral goal of a supposedly rational and objective philosophy.”
If you knew anything about what Rand wrote, you would know that she never regarded any subjective experience a basis of what would make a human happy, and never recommended the direct pursuit of happiness in that sense. She despised it and called it, correctly, hedonism.
Take whatever you think is the highest moral goal of man. What will be the result of pursuing it—misery or happiness.
That’s what Rand meant, and very clearly articulated. Of course if you do not read her, you will never know that and you can continue ignorantly criticising what she never said.
Hank
I'll offer you the challenge, then, that our Canadian friend so badly bungled.
Define in measurable terms the objective basis of "happiness," keeping in mind that to be objective, any given basis must infallibly produce "happiness," for all people at all times.
And while you're at it, why not define happiness itself, in objective, measurable terms?