I think I need an NPMR oaken stake to drive through the heart of this thread, as, apparently, no one is going to actually read the essay.
I already stated above that you underestimate the intellectual capacity of the forum users gathered here.
I read the essay. And I find that it is bad philosophy
because she doesn't bother to define the terms she uses. Bad
because she doesn't bother to explain causal relationships between the obligations she defines and the terms she uses.
A man who struggles not to acknowledge that evil is evil, finds it increasingly dangerous to acknowledge that the good is the good.
This is a non sequitur. Judging 'the good' is easier than judging 'the evil'. 'Good' deeds are more obvious than 'evil' ones. So I might struggle to acknowledge what is 'evil' - because it is very hard to determine - if at all I bother to use these relative terms.
This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil.
She never explained why I have a moral obligation to judge immoral behavior. She never explained what apart from
judging others is moral. If you like irrational rants like these you might like Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' - that, too, sounds quite reasonable until one goes through the drain of taking it apart...
When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere “I don’t agree with you” is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one’s views may be morally required.
She did not define rationality. She did not explain the logical system she follows. Is she using Aristotelian logic? Non-Aristotelian logic? Fuzzy logic? What are her ontological axioms to which the logic she uses is applied and according to which I shall judge others?
Better people? How am I going to judge a 'better' person? According to how rational
they are? And what if I am a complete moron that thinks himself to be rational. Do I have the right to judge others because I can't grasp their elevated rationality and thus mistake them to be morons?
And again: A judgment - as is any moral system - is of no avail if it does not provide a method of action. I cannot see where Rand is pointing to with all this judgment. If she wants to conquer 'evil' - and whatever that
means to her - she will at some point have to use force and take action. And frankly - I would not want to be at that place when that happens... ;)
I am sorry - but this is bad philosophy. If you really want to go onto the trip of me, myself and I - I really suggest you read Nietzsche. This woman's philosophy is but a distorted shadow of that man's heritage.