My concern was with the validity of the ideas I was generating, but I reviewed OPAR on this point and satisfied myself that it is possible to establish their validity such that I would be acting ethically.
Reviewing OPAR is always a good choice.
But to answer the question of the titel of this thread Why is the Good not a subjective choice? is that the Good is the means of achieving happiness. As such, the Good is the instrument of achievement with happiness as the end and virtue(s) as the particular means. If desire is to be one starting point for inducing goals or values to be achieved, then validation of this idea means validating the means of achieving the end.
Insofar as validating the means (virtues) of achieving the end (happines), I refer you to VOS.
I would summarize my understanding of Rand’s position as follows: there is a certain level of automatized secondhandness that eats away at one’s self-esteem to such an extent, that – at some stage of deterioration – one does not have even the sliver of self-confidence required to begin a process of change. I hate to say it’s impossible, but it might be, in the context of the years of damage and the years left to go.
I think this is true, but in regards to Keating in particular, I’m wondering if Ayn Rand was using his character as a mere literally device or if she actually knew someone who was as second-handed as he was. What I mean here is that practically everything he achieved that was of any significance was second-handed, including his academic achievements–while in architectural school, Roark even did his important class assignments for him.
On second thought, as I reflect on what she wrote on so-called progressive education, it is very well possible that she actually knew such a person. So yes, I think that it is certainly possible that mental decay could be so far advanced that any recovery is unlikely.