|
|
Atlas Shrugged
Started by Abe Lincoln at 05-22-2007 1:45 PM. Topic has 6 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 05-22-2007, 7:45 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
Hello, Mr. Lincoln. Glad to meet you!
As for the Gulch idea, keep in mind that Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction written for the purpose of influencing people. The strike is not a practical tactic. For one thing, I don't think human society would self-destruct in the face of such a strike; it seems to me that it's capable of muddling along in degraded mode indefinately. There are many other divergences between the fictional stiuation of Atlas Shrugged and the real world that one might mention. Suffice it to say that, like all novelists, Rand constructed an imaginary world to suit her art and purpose.
I think the most striking (no pun) aspect of the Atlas Shrugged sceneario is that Rand emphasized her ethics of 'no duty to others' in the most extreme way imaginable: she created a situation in which the heros, acting ethically, at least contributed to a situation in which we can imagine millions died from privation and strife.
I think that, in the real world, one is justified in acting in such an extreme way only to defeat direct threats of personal annilhilation. I cannot imagine a real-world sceneario, short of an atomic attack, where legitimate defense would require so much destruction. I think Atlas Shrugged should be viewed as didactic mythmaking, not as literal strategy for social change.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2007, 12:25 PM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 56
|
|
|
|
which acts are you specifically referring to in the book that contributed to millions dying? it seems to me they (the heros) weren't "acting" on anything and that was kind of the point. they got tired of acting and others reaping the benefits for it. not only that, but taking credit for the actions. so, the heros finally just left and let the leeches have the country and see the real results of their own actions. of course this book is an exaggeration of reality. but think if all the producers just stepped aside and let all the politicians, special interests groups, hand-shakers, smooth talkers, etc. have this country. it would be a mess. and it would have nothing to do with the john galts and dagney taggarts, cause they simply wouldn't be around. as if they never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2007, 11:57 AM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not as if Galt and Taggart don't exist. If they don't exist, they obviously have no ethical duty. We're not talking about the predicament of others if they don't exist, but about what their own duty is if they do.
The ethical point seems to turn on the matter of ommision vs. commision. We all (probably) agree that if the strikers activly killed millions in order to remake the world as they thought it should be, that would be very hard to justify (although some revolutionary sorts in history do claim such justification). But if it's a matter of standing by and in some sense allowing millions to die, when they could take action to save them, the question seems a bit more muddled. But it really isn't. Moral duty is moral duty, whether it's duty not to act (not to harm others), or to act (to help or prevent harm to others). Rand very pointedly insists the second sort of moral duty does not exist.*
In AS, the harm to the general populace is described, in verious places, as being justified because the populace was guilty of going along with the existing system, and as being the necessary price of defeating evildoers who would, if enabled, do greater harm in the long run. But these sorts of justification seem contingent and unnecessary, given the basic priinciple that one owes others nothing. Their inclusion seems to indicate that Rand did not have total confidence in her basic principle, or perhaps in the reader's ability to accept it.
As for the question of do we have a moral duty to help others, or not, I'd say rationally we don't, but it's in our nature to emotionally feel like we do, sometimes. Rand wrote off inate feelings as grounds for anything, and in fact denied they existed, but I don't think that's accurate. Basically, I realize now that I don't think it's possible to create a philosophy with which people will want to live based on reason alone. This statement has enormous implications, both for the whole project of Western Philosophy, and for the matter of how we are to live in real life.
*There may be exceptions. Rand may find a way to say one has a duty, sometimes, for example, to sieze hold of a stranger's child to keep it from falling off a cliff. But this sort of thing is an exception to her general principles, requiring some work to justify.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2007, 8:25 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 56
|
|
|
|
|
people are going to help each other in life because if they value theri own life, they will find value in others similar to them. they will see their own potential in other people. we are a specialized society that understands the growth capable of cooperation among productive individuals. i.e. joe grows corn but can't build a shelter that lasts through a heavy storm, jim builds houses that last years but can't seem to know when to plant his crop to harvest enough food to get through to the next planting season. they meet, exchange services, and both thrive. they don't NEED each other to survive, but they have made each other's lives much more easy and are able to dedicate more energy to what they succeed at.
so, to me it seems very logical to value other human beings, even if they are strangers. the more people that are alive the more goods and services can be provided and the more people to use my goods and services.
but then there are situations that make it difficult to be so willing to help someone you don't know. i wish i could remember where this story comes from, but there was a man, he was an athlete and very involved in charity works in his community. he happens by a young kid drowning, he jumps in and saves the kid, but the athlete dies in his attempt. apparently it was a pretty big deal in the news when this happened, i can't remember exactly. but the kid who got saved grows up and becomes a drug addict, in and out of prison, just a total drain on society. a lot of people say what they athlete did was honorable, and would consider it a rational decision. but the athlete hurt a lot of people by jumping in to save this kid, not to mention himself. of course you can't know the future, but was it rational that he thought the first stranger he happened on deserved to live more than he did? anyone in trouble has a claim on his life, even if they have the potential to grow up to be a burden to society? you could even say that kid was more important than all the people the athlete helped, and even the athlete's family.
my point is not that people should turn their heads when someone needs help. but other people, who are strangers no less, should not be a priority over your own survival. but it seems society today wants you to give up your life or comfort at the drop of a hat to the first person you find in an accident. wouldn't that motivate people to be accident prone?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-23-2007, 3:08 PM
|
solo
Joined on 08-08-2007
Posts 16
|
|
|
|
|
Responding to DonQuixote99:
He writes: "Moral duty is moral duty, whether it's duty not to act (not to harm others), or to act (to help or prevent harm to others). Rand very pointedly insists the second sort of moral duty does not exist.*
That is not correct.
Rand presented the application of the principle of selfishness to helping others in "The Ethics of Emergencies" in "The Virtue of Selfishness." She writes
"A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and as such a common bond among living beings ... that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him. ... Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension , a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself." (pp.46-47)
Clearly the virtue of selfishness in no way implies a lack of concern for others or frees one from all moral duty to others, as the antirationalists assert, or that "one owes others nothing", as you say here. If someone represents life sustaining value to you, then you must care for them because your concern for your own life requires it. And if such condition exists, then you do have a moral duty to protect them, since you have a moral duty to preserve yourself.
Any concern for the welfare of others is tempered by the same consideration as all other acts under the principle of selfishness, which is that one must never trade a higher value for a lower one. Thus, there is a limit to how far one can go in protecting others, this point determined by the amount of value being gained from their preservation compared to the amount of value expended in providing the necessary assistance. One does not risk one's life for total strangers, but one does not ignore their peril as if they don' t exist. One expends the value one considers appropriate given their value to oneself.
As far as "feeling like we do" goes, taken by itself is a whim. One never acts on unidentified emotions. Emotions are however caused by values. If one values life, then this would create an emotional desire to act benevolently toward life. This emotion however is not inherent in the beast but the result of the valuation of life. You do not need to separate rationally and emotionally based motivations here to allow for benevolence. And to say that this has enormous implications is certainly correct, since the introduction of such a notion into human nature forces reason to compete side by side with emotion and introduces subjectivism into epistemology and ethics. If this is done all one needs to claim is the presence of an innate feeling and a valid justification emerges for believing and doing anything one pleases. There is no limit to how far this can be carried and it will corrupt all rational discourse. Mankind will devolve into irresolvable conflict with attendant violence and destruction.
If you sense innate emotions within yourself, you must introspect and search out the cause. They will always trace back to some combination of values and circumstances. I believe the reason that people assert the existence of these innate feelings is simply that they do not have the introspective capacity to see their causes. Introspective ability is not easily acquired and takes many years of thought and reflection. If one persists, the ability will come and it will be seen that Rand is correct about this. Every emotion you possess is caused by values and the circumstances in which they exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-23-2007, 3:56 PM
|
Pelagius
Joined on 08-14-2007
Posts 4
|
|
|
|
It's always good to help others
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Nove... » Atlas Shrugged » Re: Galt's Gulch
|
|
|
|