Objectivism does not.
Even if one excises Ayn Rand's infamous politics and personal hypocrisies, and even everything which doesn't follow from claimed principles it isn't very workable. Rationality is a measure of sanity more than morality even if there may be some overlap in that a perfectly rational actor wouldn't display gratitutous cruelty.
Granted everything we have is also imperfect. Pure intuition can easily fall into nonsensical superstition and prejudices like Pythagorean hatred for beans and irrational number denial and rationality alone. There are plenty of "serial killer organ thief doctor utilitarianism" arguments but those first order calculations fail to consider the impact of it inevitably becoming a known thing in society. Being incentivized to shoot a doctor if you wind up alone with one is a larger net harm to society in addition to the obvious deterrant to being a lone traveler. Those silly exercises aside rationality alone is insufficient it lacks goal definition. One may rationally persue extinction of all life in the universe or maximizing human lifespan.
If a sub-goal is linked to another goal it can be found to be irrational if inconsistent, if painting your dog won't make your crush love you dog-painting isn't a rational goal. But if you want to just paint your dog for the sake of doing so (please don't) it can't be said to be less rational than another goal even if it is more or less obtainable.