Businessmen In Atlas Shrugged

[oldsalt]

I once gave Atlas Shrugged to an acquaintance to read. After reading it, he said that he enjoyed it, BUT that he didn't think that all businessmen were the way Miss Rand described them: honest, upright, etc. I asked him which businessmen he was talking about, those like Hank Reardon, or those like Orrin Boyle. Miss Rand didn't portray just one type of businessman, but men of varying degrees of virtue.

Has this happened to anyone else? Why would anyone zero in on the best (deny that the best exists) while ignoring the others depicted? (Or, perhaps, they think all businessmen are like Orrin Boyle, which seems to be the default position. Maybe that's why they don't seem to take note of these particular characters.)

Something else I've noticed: no one with whom I've discussed the book ever mentions the nature of those in the book who represent the government. Their characters seem to be a given.

I wanted to discuss this because I've noticed the same mind-set demonstrated by some of the posts I've read in the "How to Ensure Fair Treatment" thread and I'm curious to know if this is a wide-spread interpretation.

Edited June 28, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[MinorityOfOne]

Well, oddly, people like to raise Orren Boyle types as a rationale for the very sorts of governmental regulations the looters benefited from. Don't know if pointing that out would help, but maybe...

[oldsalt]

Matt: Doesn't citing Orrin Boyle in such a manner accomplish the same thing as what I stated originally? It ignores the virtuous businessmen, which effectively denies their existence.

[Fred Weiss]

Matt:  Doesn't citing Orrin Boyle in such a manner accomplish the same thing as what I stated originally?  It ignores the virtuous businessmen, which effectively denies their existence.

You may just be dealing with "Missing Link" types (I'm referring to AR's essay on the subject in PWNI), i.e. people who just can't grasp the kinds of distinctions AR makes or think in essentials or think conceptually at a high enough level to get what she is driving at - either with regard to the issue you are raising or any other.

You know, for many, if not most, people FTHD and Atlas are just stories with little or no philosophical implications that they can discern or have any interest in grappling with.

Fred Weiss

[RationalBiker]

The ironic thing about using Orren Boyle as an example of why we need government regulations is that it's like giving the shop keys to the thief. It was his type that sought government regulations which benefitted the looters and took from the producers. A person's "reasoning" must be very skewed to think with that kind of logic.

VES

[Bearster]

I once gave Atlas Shrugged to an aquaintance to read. After reading it, he said that he enjoyed it, BUT that he didn't think that all businessmen were the way Miss Rand described them:

Yes, I've seen this often. I think this is a consequence of their view of morality. Altruism is based on the view that in any interaction between men, one must necessarily be sacrificed to the other. Of course, altruism demands that one sacrifice to the other guy. But the flip side of the coin is pragmatism, which says sacrifice the other guy to yourself if you can get away with it.

The good is self-sacrifice, but the practical is other-sacrifice. They know that business is about being practical...

Well, oddly, people like to raise Orren Boyle types as a rationale for the very sorts of governmental regulations

There's another perverse premise here. Namely, that businessmen are would-be thieves and murderers who would be selling poison for cancer cures if permitted. These crooks can be forced to deliver value if they're regulated "enough" (the meaning of "enough" seems to keep shifting).

This is, of course, preposterous. Crooks do not become honest in a guilty-until-proven-innocent regime. They figure out how to game the process, while honest men are hurt by it.

[MinorityOfOne]

Matt: Doesn't citing Orrin Boyle in such a manner accomplish the same thing as what I stated originally? It ignores the virtuous businessmen, which effectively denies their existence.

That might be what they're up to, but not necessarily. Remember, the idea that evil is essentially impotent is fairly unique to Objectivism. Most people ascribe far more power to evil people than they merit.

Imagine for a second that you thought that evil was more powerful than good. Isn't it a logical step to then say "Well, we'll do whatever we can to shackle evil, even if it means hindering good people somewhat along the way? That way, at least they'll be free from the intrusion of evil people, and they can still accomplish something."

I think this is a big part of why some people read Atlas Shrugged and say "But it's just unrealistic." It's not that they're denying that there are honest businessmen. I bet if they were pushed on it, a lot of them would even say that most businessmen are honest. However, I've often heard people say that it's the dishonest ones who rise to the top.

If you're dealing with this sort of person, pointing out that Boyle would benefit from the sorts of regulations he was brought up in defense of would be almost useless. It would, at best, cut off that one particular line of argument. Unfortunately, Atlas Shrugged is itself the best argument I know of for the impotence of evil. If somebody doesn't get it after reading that book, I don't know what else to say about it. So I suspect that if you're really interested in convincing them, and you really think they're honest enough to make it possible, you'd have to do some more digging. Find out what's really motivating it at a deep level, and then work from there.

[oldsalt]

Fred Weiss wrote:

"...[P]eople just can't grasp the kinds of distinctions AR makes or think in essentials or think conceptually at a high enough level to get what she is driving at...."

In other words, people don't use principles to guide their thinking. Or, they don't do so consistentely. I've met this type (far too many). One is able to convince them about one specific thing, but they are unable to apply that to something involving the same principle.

RationalCop wrote:

"A person's 'reasoning' must be very skewed to think with that kind of logic."

Or just non-existent!

Bearster wrote:

"I think this is a consequence of their view of morality.

<snip>

"The good is self-sacrifice, but the practical is other-sacrifice. They know that business is about being practical."

MinorityOfOnewrote:

"Remember, the idea that evil is essentially impotent is fairly unique to Objectivism. Most people ascribe far more power to evil people than they merit."

Between Bearster and Matt I think we have the widest answer.

Consider what this actually means in reality. You end up with both a fundamental fear of others and a fundamental fear of the practical. Both fears require that a lid be kept on practical others. Perhaps this is the basis for the reasoning I've heard in favor of "practical" sacrifice, i.e., that it is the practical because you never know when you might need help yourself.

No matter how you cut it, it boils down to fear.