I do not see her views on ethics to be flawed in any way at the most basic form.

She may have taken some stances I do not agree with, but that is because we are subjective human beings living in an objective world and we must disagree at times.

I believe all of her ethics revolved around values, self worth, and the right of all people to their own liberty and self value. No man should be forced to do another man's work.

Give me one reason why sacrificing my own values for another's that is inconsequential or unimportant to me is necessary and good?

Regardless of your views on "art" and "good literature" you must be understanding of what the author intended. The intention of the author to the book as compared to the actual meaning or purpose you got from the book is what makes writing good, is it not? The ability to communicate an idea or concept to others is the point of writing? The details are superfluous and unimportant to the main body of the writing and can be enjoyed if you like things to be pretty for no reason, that's fine by me but you cannot say it was written poorly.

She seems to delude herself by believing that to be human is to be rational. Now it would be great if this were true, but to do so would require some freak, and might I say dehumanizing, eugenics experiment.

How can governments ensure a peaceful environment for production and trade when:
a- mobile technology ensures the internationalization of organized crime?
b- bio-technology gives any wacko with a chemistry set the opportunity to blow up important financial centres?
c- small adversarial governments like North Korea are increasingly capable of acquiring nuclear weapons?

Perhaps in doing so you would learn greater respect for that which others value, and maybe even a little about what you value and why you value what you value.

It seems to me that what we value changes - our values are not static. Perhaps clinging to these values isn't so healthy.

Disagreements of moral philosophy are not so easily explained away by saying we all view things a little differently (the subjective nature of our experience). For instance, Rand suggests that self interest is moral, and selflessness immoral. To suggest the reverse, that selflessness is moral, selfishness immoral, is a bit more substantial than glass half full/empty disagreements.

We could agree that no man should be forced to do another's work and still fundamentally disagree with Rand's ethics. We could agree that no man should be forced to do another's work while one of us suggests that self is entirely illusory.

That's one of my problems with her style of philosophy - either you agree with her, or you think all men should be slaves, ect. She shows absolutely no respect for any variety in human perspectives - except for Aristotle.

If the details are unimportant, they should not have been included. That is one of my criticisms - Atlas is terribly, unnecessarily long. The book can be enjoyed; I enjoyed the book for the most part. But airport romance novels can also be enjoyed, yet they are hardly examples of good literature.

Which brings me to my next criticism. Rand somehow manages to tie human emotion in with human rationality, as if the former were merely a byproduct of the latter. Despite granting her characters spurts of rapture every time they indulge in the righteousness of their own reason, this supposition receives little rational justification in the book. Transforming mind into matter is a good feeling indeed, but to call it bliss is almost laughable.

Perhaps, but I have no reason to respect what others value, unless the other is a value to me. I mean, I wouldn't show disrespect, but i would be indifferent. I feel it is better to determine what i value based on my interactions with people more than my self sacrifice for people because it is a true, trusting, and balanced relationship as opposed to a relationship that may be balanced, but may only be balanced from one perspective and allows for less disagreements (though i guess that idea is arguable).

While values may change, it is generally based on needs or wants in the life of the individual. The individual should have the insight and self control to understand not to hang on to values when they have lost their value to them would be the argument of Rand I believe.

What Rand suggests is that the other should not be a value to you. That's a fundamental disagreement I have with Rand - I suggest other people should be supremely valuable to you.
So, if other people should be valued by you, then the interests of other people should be valued by you, at least to the extent that others are concerned - for example, we shouldn't ridicule our deeply religious friend's faith tradition. We should be considerate of our friend.

We end up chasing ghosts, without any respect for our fellow man if we follow Rand's ethics. That's why I said Rand's ethics are the playground ethics of a five year old. It's my ball - I don't like to share!

And here is the worst of her ethical system - as criticisms leak in, as the system shows itself to be impossible and wretched, Rand defends herself by claiming that her ethics are for an elite few, those of such great self interest. So, if her system is flawed, you just are not good enough for her system.

Do you remember the end of Atlas Shrugged? The whole point of the ending was to show that caring for others is nothing to be shunned as long as it is still in your best interest because the other is valuable to you. Of course you should not value others when they have nothing of value to give you.

Without respect???? No, without UNDESERVED respect, surely this concept is nothing new if you have read Aristotle.

There is still no reason to share unless it increases the enjoyment the ball gives you.

I do not believe she would ever claim her philosophy to be impossible.

The heroes of her philosophy would be perfect, but that's what they are: HEROES.

The constant struggle for the ideal will lead us into ruin is what you are saying, just because the ideal is not necessarily possible.

Just because it isn't possible doesn't mean it isn't necessary or good. Nor does it mean that the struggle is bad.

I would rather die struggling for good than to just "accept" I can never do anything good and live to please others and hope they please me back.

After that trash, I had to read one of her "philosophical" texts. Pure garbage. The Virtue of Selfishness plain old sucks. She pretty much makes up stuff to justify this idea that selfishness is what Aristotle would probably call practical wisdom. It is done so in a way that is seductive, but such a poor way of thinking that it justifies injustice. It obvious why her "philosophy" is attractive to non-philosophers. It appeals to people that have little experience with the vast history of philosophy and, thus, cannot see through all of the bull****.

Hi Y'all!

Ayn Rand, is she even considered in the same context as the great thinkers, what does the philosophical community, the intellectual community feel about her works. You realize that if she does not make the grade, she will be martyred, crown of thorns and all, the eternal sufferer of all womanhood-its a touch subject:p What's this, the oldboys club?:p