Rand merely suggests that lacking any purpose in life is a moral failing of the individual. According to this view, a person who contributes nothing to others but lives very "purposefully" to satisfy an arbitrary personal interest in gardening, or cooking, or classic comic book collecting is living a life that is morally and spiritually superior to one who maintains no highly motivated purpose but happens to improve the lives of others through his profession. This failure to distinguish between life purposes with a worthwhile effect and life purposes that are both harmless and useless to others implies that the comic book collector is necessarily a more fulfilling and moral life than that of the person who simply enjoys life and lives humbly and peacefully with others. In my opinion, the individual who lives for any unexamined purpose (or one that actually accomplishes nothing but self-fulfilment)...

She describes intermediate positions (of "grey") as worse than even the wrong conclusions where the choice is between the right answer, the wrong answer, and a middle of the road position. In my opinion, it is illogical to suggest that the middle position is "worse" than the position that is absolutely wrong. In my view, most moral and other complex questions raise a kaleidoscope of colored issues and not a black-and-white or even a shades-of-grey approach. If anything, a middle position is certainly less wrong than the wrong answer and it is more likely to address multiple nuances or competing interests raised by dilemmas of any kind.