I'm currently pursuing Rand's philosophy. Her nonfictions are very valuable because they comprise the philosophy itself. But Peikoff's books and lectures about Objectivism are also extremely valuable.
He had to overcome a lot of bad thinking habits to gain a genuine understanding of Objectivism and he is in a good position to help others get past those roadblocks.
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is useful to help you integrate Rand's philosophy into a mental hierarchy, and his courses Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism Through Induction are useful to help you prove Objectivism to yourself, so you can see how Rand's philosophy really is connected to reality and pertains to your life.
I can counter your argument by saying simply: A homophobe would only have to see the same thing you do (the men kissing), and would draw a completely different conclusion than you do without the aid of religion. That's why you can't rely on emotional or intuition-based morality. The same situation can cause different emotions in different people.
When you're born, both your conscious and subconscious minds are blank slates. When you choose values and accept premises, those go into your subconscious since your conscious can't hold everything you know at once.
Emotions are the result of lightning-quick value-judgments performed by your subconscious mind. The subconscious is like a computer that your conscious programs, and your emotions are a constant printout.
Because of this, your emotional reactions to various situations depend on the values you've accepted and the premises you hold.
When you and someone else agree that it is wrong to arrest a gay man for kissing someone, based on your emotional reactions, it's because you both share western values such as individual rights and the separation between church and state. This allows you both to -feel- that the arrest is immoral. But someone who deeply disvalues homosexuality or deeply values a religion that is intolerant to homosexuality will -feel- -instantly- that the act of two men kissing is vile and the arrest is just and righteous, or at least preferable to allowing the men to kiss any longer.
THIS is why morality has to be based on facts. Why it must be grounded in reality. A person's wrong premises can easily make them -feel- that an evil act is righteous. Morality must be objectively defined and validated in order to stand up to peoples' whims.
Instead of trusting morality to a person's feelings and intuitions, you should examine the nature of reality and of human beings and determine, based on the way we are, what we should do.
I already linked this in another comment, but I'll link it here too. It's an essay Ayn Rand wrote that does just that. It examines the facts that give rise to man's need of a moral code, and then justifies, based on reality and man's nature, the proper moral code for man to practice. (Rational Egoism.)
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand...
If you don't agree with this essay, at least you can take from it an example of how to justify a moral code firmly grounded in reality, instead of in someone's -feelings- of right and wrong. Even if such feelings did default to a correct moral code, they would still be unreliable due to how easily they can be overridden.
Having an objectively defined moral code will not only allow you to be -certain- that you are doing the right thing, but you'll have intellectual ammo to back up your code when it is attacked. "I feel this is right" is insufficient to defend any moral code, even if it is the right moral code.
I've actually never come across that quote of Rand's before. It must be in a book of hers I haven't read. It's a terrible quote to try to justify Objectivist ethics with.
The best validation of her ethics I know of is an essay entitled The Objectivist Ethics, in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. The first several pages are dedicated to establishing why man needs ethics, and the rest of the essay to explaining Objectivist ethics and why it benefits human life.
I find it sad that almost every commenter here so far has not only defended the New Atheists, but they've also defended intuition and innate-conscience based morality.
You're doing the exact same thing the author of the article accused the New Atheists of. Stop defending emotion based morality and start arguing for rational, reality-based morality.
I'm still studying Objectivism myself, but as far as I know, Ayn Rand has already based morality in reality. The article stating this at the end doesn't seem to be intended as a baseless assumption. It's basically saying "Here's a reality-based morality. For its validation, see Rand's works." I'd listen to it and actually try to understand where Rand was coming from before attacking her. I see idiotic attacks on her philosophy every day, and not a single one of the attackers understands or has even tried to understand it.
If you think there's an alternative to Rational Egoism, base that alternative on facts, not on personal feelings or the whims of large groups of people.
Again, stop arguing for emotion based morality, and start basing morality on facts.
I think the majority of this article was just intended to show that the "New Atheists" don't have any better justification for their moralities than the religious people do, and that morality must be justified with reason, not from feelings.
The footnote was meant to recommend the reader to a source of moral guidance that is actually justified rationally and grounded in reality. (Objectivism.)
"I can then imagine some of them going for the "I deserve it because I was so awesome in my past-life.", which also doesn't hold up because it's a circular argument. So, again, how can they justify their superiority?"
I'd personally go with "I deserve it because I was so awesome in this life."
He had to overcome a lot of bad thinking habits to gain a genuine understanding of Objectivism and he is in a good position to help others get past those roadblocks.
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is useful to help you integrate Rand's philosophy into a mental hierarchy, and his courses Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism Through Induction are useful to help you prove Objectivism to yourself, so you can see how Rand's philosophy really is connected to reality and pertains to your life.