I value Rand up to a point, but I cannot accept her atheistic stance: If there is no external, superior moral absolute, then on what basis can she make any moral evaluation?
She implicitly, if not explicitly, argues that her philosophy (via John Galt) is ultimately more morally valid. Why? And why would it matter?
If there is no God, then nothing matters.
‘If there is no external, superior moral absolute, then on what basis can she make any moral evaluation?’
you can’t imagine a situation in which ethical behavior is possible without reference to sourcing from an unknowable entity which is postulated to exist outside of time and space restraints...?
‘If there is no God, then nothing matters.’
that’s an opinion you have no empirical nor epistemological basis for making...
To the contrary, if there is no god than everything matters so much more and moral truths are the only thing that will keep us as more than animal and it qould be our ultimate responsibility to adhere to them even more closely