So I do a lot of research into different moral theories. I'm not going to bore you with a bunch of details. That said, there are a few different "hinges" within the many areas of morality, though not as many as one might think. For example, Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" remains entirely dependent upon the limits of "rationality", for lack of a better term. Rand would not deny this, in fact, she would claim that is all we CAN rely on when it comes to making claims about what it means to be human. This is an interesting argument, and one that is very difficult to argue against IF we assume that human reasoning is the "only" form of reasoning worth using in the determination of right/wrong, i.e., Morality.
It seems pretty difficult to deny the power of human consciousness in terms of "reason", as any attempt to deny reason must arise from an act of reasoning. Now the thing about this argument is that there is no way of being CERTAIN that one side is "better/more correct/true/etc." Again, Rand more or less agrees, we can never be certain about anything beyond which "human" reason provides; and human reason cannot say for certain "why there is something rather than nothing", to use a famous philosophical quandary. Or to put it in more up to date terms, is it "better" to have gun control and less freedom, or is it "better" to have more freedom and higher risks?
So what does that mean if we accept that claim on principle? Rand tells us that means those humans who are best able to manipulate conditions into their favor, are simply the most "rational" in terms of what is required to manipulate said conditions. For example, it is very often the most creative, not the most "intelligent", that are widely successful in this world. And by "success" Rand meant a life with as much control/leisure as humanly possible. If that is at the expense of less creative/intelligent individuals, than so be it; it's called evolution bitches. Okay, I might be paraphrasing a bit on that last one, but there are links here to Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism; but that is another story.
Rand is not an uberrationalist, i.e., she is not saying the person with the highest IQ will automatically be the most successful individual within society, but they will have a WAY higher probability of doing so. And for Rand this is not a qualitative claim per se, as that would require anther argument, i.e., what does it mean to be "successful"? Again, Rand simply relies on what "most rational people" appear to agree upon; it is better to be rich than poor for example. Does that mean every rich person will be happy and every poor person miserable; not at all. It is simply that "most" would be willing to test the former over the latter.
In terms of morality, it is not necessarily "better" to be moral, rather, it is better to "appear" moral. This has lead, I argue, to our current state of affairs. There is no "morality" beyond what one can get others to agree IS moral. The school shootings is a perfect example. Clearly everyone agrees it is immoral to murder, but "rational" people disagree over what the "cause" of said actions IS. Which is just to say, in a view of morality as linked to reason, there is no morality per se, there is only the smoke and mirrors game of appearing to be more rational than those that disagree with one's position. So if enough people agree that freedom is better than say gun control, then there morally it is better to have higher risks of "mass shootings" than the "possibility" of limiting said freedom.
There is a ton more to say, but I will end there.