Editing Objectivism (section)

==== Criticism on ethics ====
Some philosophers have criticized Objectivist ethics. The philosopher [[Robert Nozick]] argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because it does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values, in order to further some particular value. He argues that her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is, therefore, an instance of [[begging the question]]. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to [[David Hume]]'s famous [[is-ought problem]] is unsatisfactory. In response, the philosophers [[Douglas B. Rasmussen]] and [[Douglas Den Uyl]] have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem |last=O'Neil |first=Patrick M. |journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies |date=Spring 1983 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=81–99 |url=https://www.mises.org/sites/default/files/7_1_4_0.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Nozick On the Randian Argument |last1=Den Uyl |first1=Douglas |author-link1=Douglas Den Uyl |last2=Rasmussen |first2=Douglas |author-link2=Douglas B. Rasmussen |journal=The Personalist |date=April 1978 |volume=59 |pages=184–205}} Reprinted along with Nozick's article in ''Reading Nozick'', J. Paul, ed., 1981, [[Rowman & Littlefield]].</ref>

Charles King criticized Rand's example of an indestructible robot to demonstrate the value of life as incorrect and confusing.<ref>King, J. Charles. "Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered" in {{harvnb|Den Uyl|Rasmussen|1984}}.</ref> In response, Paul St. F. Blair defended Rand's ethical conclusions, while maintaining that his arguments might not have been approved by Rand.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/10/rp_10_7.pdf |title=The Randian Argument Reconsidered: A Reply to Charles King |first=Paul |last=St. F. Blair |journal=Reason Papers |date=Spring 1985 |issue=10 |access-date=September 14, 2011}}</ref>