She claims that it is right because the value of her own mind makes it so...end of story. Talk about a circular argument. What gives her that understanding that what she percieves to be good is right and good. She refuses to answer. Prysson is right. Atheists can have whatever morality they want. They can start with a framework in which anything is good or bad for them. They can then proceed rationally from there, if they wish. Stalin did this; so did Mao. Both were extremely rational atheists. Ayn Rand believed she created good and bad out of rationality. But in reality, she had preconceived notions of good and bad (her own morality), to which she applied rationality. Christians, in contrast (or members of other religions), believe that God provides them with the definition of good and bad. They also can then proceed rationally from that point.
Thanks for putting it so concisely. I tend at times to get longwinded. But that is the argument in a nutshel. Ayn Rand had a very clear image in her mind about what was good and what was bad. She believed that she gave herself that sense of rightness and wrongness. All of her rational justification of the position stems from that position. The problem with that theory is that there is no true right or wrong. what is right or wrong is no more then what someone thinks it is...and yet she would deny that absolutely which is what is so ironic about her position. She would argue absolutely that the what was right and wrong was relative to the person. She was not a fan of relativism. Somehow this otherwise brilliant lady failed to see that thee is no garantee that given a relative morality that it would be the same for each person. Who then would be to say that she was right. She would say "I say I am right." The problem is that that comment is ultimately meaningless in any context other than as a hypothetical argument. He position was based on the absolute certainty that she was right..without ever explaining WHY she would be right and someone else would be wrong....would we then have to assume she was the only rational person on the plante..everyone must agree with her or else they are an irrational idiot. That is utter nonsense. Someone can be a very intelligent very rational persona and "choose" of the own free will to have a different opinion about whether or not something was right. So now who is right. Still Her? based on what?
You see even in her own argument their is this underlying assumption that there is and ACTUAL RIGHT. She just conveniently refuses to explain where that sense of right and wrong comes from. It must really be nice to be able to say...
"I am right because Isaid I am right and there is no need to explain why I think that way."