If I am not mistaken, he is talking about Randian Objectivism, not lower-case-o objectivism. Just reading the whole post with no bias makes me conclude that he is “tentatively” a moral objectivist. He also seems to be in favor of intuitionism, which I conclude not only from the post, but from the fact that he said (in one of his blog posts) he liked Michael Huemer’s book about intuitionism.
Clayton, I re-read our discussion and your thoughts on David Gordon’s review of Thomas Nagel’s book. Would you say that your view of morality expressed here is consequentialist or deontological?