You end up with a self-consistent philosophy Wow, people's view of Ayn Rand is really getting better :). but there are plenty of those around. Plenty of thos

You end up with a self-consistent philosophy Wow, people's view of Ayn Rand is really getting better :). but there are plenty of those around. Plenty of those around? I disagree. Even if you're willing to make liberties for what we count as a philosophical system, there are actually only a few options at most. For example, existentialism, Marxism, Kantianism (not even sure I'd count that), various religions (which are really just a primitive kind of philosophy). Historically, there are three highly unique philosophical "giants." Basically every other philosopher falls into one of these three camps. They are: Aristotle, Plato, and Kant. Aristotle was the this-worldly, holding that knowledge is induced from reality. Plato was other-worldly, holding that knowledge comes about through revelation from a higher realm. Kant was anti-worldly, holding that actual knowledge is impossible. Rand is the only modern, system-building philosopher who is heavily Aristotelian. Thus, she deserves a serious look from people who are curious as to whether an objective philosophy is possible. It's not objectively any better than e.g. modern utilitarianism Utilitarianism is just an ethical doctrine (not a philosophy). Nit picks aside: there are various justifications for it, all of which fall short, because they tell you to sacrifice yourself. I've never seen a supporter of this position who thinks that the is-ought gap can be bridged, so as far as I'm aware, in any justification of utilitarianism, ethics is just a game, anyway. So yes, people will say "modern utilitarianism is objectively as good as any solution," since no ethical sytems is any "better" than any other. But what if that's not the case? Common sense and history would suggest that some ethical systems are much better than others. and the moral positions that result align poorly with most people's moral intuitions. Given humanity's history, any moral system that aligns well with people's intuitions is probably a bloody and destructive one, and so people should be keeping a lookout for something fundamentally different. Intuitions are just non-explicit ideas that people have been raised with; they don't count towards establishing truth or goodness.