Three questions about Atlas Shrugged

[R Press]

1. What is "wrong" about Eddie Willers. He seems to share the same principles with the heroes of AS, but doesn't have as great of a mind as the others. If this is true, I don't see why Rand would want him to have a tragic ending.

2. I noticed Rand identifies most of her characters by either their first or last name. However, Eddie Willers is always described by first and last name. I doubt this has any real significance, but it made me curious regarding what Rand was thinking while writing.

3. After Galt's speech, there are a few stories told about how people are beaten up because they were being altruists. I think one involved a social worker being kicked around. I don't know why Rand would include this. I'm not sure if the people committing these random acts of violence were trying to grasp what Galt advocated or not. If so, then they obviously missed the boat since the initiation of force is wrong. So was Rand trying to show that people were just misconstruing what Galt said? Or is there another purpose to these parts of the book?

[khaight]

1.  What is "wrong" about Eddie Willers.  He seems to share the same principles with the heroes of AS, but doesn't have as great of a mind as the others.  If this is true, I don't see why Rand would want him to have a tragic ending.

Eddie's ending isn't tragic, it's undetermined. It's possible some better group of people happened by the train before he died; it's also possible that doesn't happen. The point Rand was trying to illustrate was that moral men of average ability aren't capable of creating a modern society by themselves. They are a valuable part of such a society when it is built by men of genius, but they can't go it alone.

[danielshrugged]

3.  After Galt's speech, there are a few stories told about how people are beaten up because they were being altruists.  I think one involved a social worker being kicked around.  I don't know why Rand would include this.  I'm not sure if the people committing these random acts of violence were trying  to grasp what Galt advocated or not.  If so, then they obviously missed the boat since  the initiation of force is wrong.  So was Rand trying to show that people were just misconstruing what Galt said?  Or is there another purpose to these parts of the book?

When you're living in a dictatorship, it can hardly be evil to take revenge against those who put the dictatorship into power. Morality applies only within the context of a free or semi-free society, not a dictatorship.

[R Press]

When you're living in a dictatorship, it can hardly be evil to take revenge against those who put the dictatorship into power. Morality applies only within the context of a free or semi-free society, not a dictatorship.

These people were not necessarily initiating force. They may preach ideas that justify force, but if they are not practicing it, then I don't see how coercing these altruists is morally justified. And where do we draw the line? Why not deem it moral to kill all altruistic-thinkers in a free or semi-free society? Since these people have the potential to put a dictatorship into power, then why not claim it is morally justified to take preemptive action?

[Toolboxnj]

2.  I noticed Rand identifies most of her characters by either their first or last name.  However, Eddie Willers is always described by first and last name.  I doubt this has any real significance, but it made me curious regarding what Rand was thinking while writing. 

I've also noticed that successful companies are named with their founder's last name (Rearden Metal, Dan. Coal) and failed companies aren't (Assoc. Steel, Atlantic Southern, Amalgated Switch, 20th Cent. Motor)

TB

Er, Edit: By "successful" I mean companies that are lead by the "minds" and "failed" by those who use the government for their ends.

[Inspector]

I don't see how coercing these altruists is morally justified.

Well, two things:

1) I don't think that those "common people" who were beating up altruists are meant to be the heroes of the story. They were just regular people who were dealing with the problem on the level that they could understand. Their actions were not meant to be followed, in other words.

2) As this was at the point in the story where everyone had already been stripped of their rights by government decree, I believe Rand would view their actions as "neutral." She has an interesting description of the moral status of the actions of those who live under a dictatorship. I belive it is on one of the FAQ's on the ARI. Maybe someone here can get you a link...

[DavidV]

When you're living in a dictatorship, it can hardly be evil to take revenge against those who put the dictatorship into power. Morality applies only within the context of a free or semi-free society, not a dictatorship.

I would rather say that the use of force is moral only against those who initiate it, or materially support those who do, whether or not they do so on behalf a government or any other group. All human actions have a moral evaluation to the extent that they are chosen by the acting individuals.

[R Press]

Well, two things:

1) I don't think that those "common people" who were beating up altruists are meant to be the heroes of the story. They were just regular people who were dealing with the problem on the level that they could understand. Their actions were not meant to be followed, in other words.

2) As this was at the point in the story where everyone had already been stripped of their rights by government decree, I believe Rand would view their actions as "neutral." She has an interesting description of the moral status of the actions of those who live under a dictatorship. I belive it is on one of the FAQ's on the ARI. Maybe someone here can get you a link...

I know that these "common people" are not to be glorified, but their motive is what makes me curious. The best I can come up with at this point is that Rand was just further showing how the country was collapsing.

I'll have to take a look at Rand's perspective on force in a dictatorship. But as GreedyCapitalist said, I think force is only justified against those who initiate it to begin with.

[Inspector]

The best I can come up with at this point is that Rand was just further showing how the country was collapsing. 

As an interesting addition, I would say that a key feature of a system that institutionalizes the initiation of force is that it makes it nearly impossible for the individual to distinguish exactly who has initiated force against him. This is a very insideous feature which often disarms the morally unsure.

[goldmonkee]

The point Rand was trying to illustrate was that moral men of average ability aren't capable of creating a modern society by themselves.  They are a valuable part of such a society when it is built by men of genius, but they can't go it alone.

That's exactly what I came away with. Kind of depressed me, as I'm an Eddie, though I aspire to be a Rearden or Galt

[McGroarty]

I've also noticed that successful companies are named with their founder's last name (Rearden Metal, Dan. Coal) and failed companies aren't (Assoc. Steel, Atlantic Southern, Amalgated Switch, 20th Cent. Motor)

Er, Edit: By "successful" I mean companies that are lead by the "minds" and "failed" by those who use the government for their ends.

While reading The Fountainhead, I remember appreciating Howard Roark for simply labeling his door with "Howard Roark, Architect" on finally founding his own firm. Saying "here I am and here is what I do" bespeaks a different mindset than the one that names a company to evoke unrelated imagery. The difference is like that between the architects who dedicated space and effort to a building's purpose and those who sacrificed purpose to classical architectural decorations.

[A.West]

1. Keep in mind that objectively, Eddie Willers is still a top 5% sort of person in most regards. He has reached at a young age professional success and high standing in a major corporation, he's smart, and he's virtuous. But he is to some degree a follower, not a leader.

2. Ayn Rand didn't spend is much time with the internal life of Eddie Willers as the main characters. We're aware of his love for Dagny, friendship with Galt, but we pretty much observe it from outside rather than inside his head. So we're not as intimate with his thoughts. Perhaps Ayn Rand didn't want to probe too deeply into a confusion that she wouldn't resolve in the book.

3. Given the context, some people saw their lives and country failing due to an abundance of altruism, and Galt's speech clarified their understanding of the source of evil. Given how their lives were falling apart, perhaps they didn't really care that they were violating someone's rights with a punch in the mouth. In chaos and civil war, a spokesman or courier for evil is lucky to leave with their life. The choice to fight back represented the idea that those people saw the ethical question (egoism vs. altruism) as a life or death question to them. If you had just lost your life savings in a government crisis and someone came to tell you to cheer up because money was the root of evil, wouldn't you want to kick them in the nuts? Sometimes moral justice is worth risking a charge of battery.