Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of killing a politician who's violating rights

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ok, Ragner didn't actually kill anybody in the novel, supposedly, or at lease it was never mentioned, or was too insignificant to mention. That can be merely because Atlas Shrugged was not meant to be a war novel, but don't let that dissuade aspiring "Objectivist revolutionaires" to work towards a better world anyway we each individually can, even if it may come down to using extreme force.

Remember Steven Mallory's assassination attempt on Tohey? Remember how Roark didn't seem to mind, like it was besides the point? Remember how Mallory's unkept room was compared to a battlefield?

Remember at the end of We The Living, who dies? Is that justifiable?

Give me liberty or give me death.

You can pull out as many fictional "points" as you want, but Ayn Rand made very explicit and very clear comments when such violent action is justifiable and when it is not, more than once, in her non-fiction writings. This is not one of them. If you want to behave in that way or advocate it in some fashion then that is your own prerogative, but don't call yourself an Objectivist when you do so, because advocacy of such things disqualifies you from that label.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be rejecting the rule of law.

No. Mobster "politicians" are rejecting the rule of law. Objectivists should strive to uphold the proper law in the face of intellectual corruption.

You can pull out as many fictional "points" as you want, but Ayn Rand... blah blah blah

I wonder what her fiction is based on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Mobster "politicians" are rejecting the rule of law. Objectivists should strive to uphold the proper law in the face of intellectual corruption.

...

I wonder what her fiction is based on?

You can wonder all you want, but the fact is that she stated her views quite clearly, and violence against politicians is not part of Objectivism. Start a blog and spread whatever views you wish, but do not pretend on OO.net that your views are Objectivist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Steven Mallory's assassination attempt on Tohey? Remember how Roark didn't seem to mind, like it was besides the point? Remember how Mallory's unkept room was compared to a battlefield?

Roark understanding Mallory isn't Roark condoning Mallory

Remember at the end of We The Living, who dies? Is that justifiable?

Are we living in a prison state?

Give me liberty or give me death.

You do not get the liberty to shoot people at will. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mods, are you sure this needs to be its own thread? Its a little more conspicuous than I wanted it to be out here.

This question has come up before on these forums, and perhaps something will be gained by straightfowardly addressing the question at this point. I assure you that we are not singling you out by splitting your (interesting) question into a separate thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roark understanding Mallory isn't Roark condoning Mallory

Mallory is special to Roark. To the layman, it would appear this is because Mallory is merely a good artist. But, being a good enough artist according to Roark's standards entails many things about Mallory's character. Think of it: if art is the expression of one's sense of life or metaphysical value judgements then Mallory's act of assassination would play in conjunction with that. It would be a part of his artistic vision. You cannot split up artistic vision and one's mental choices. This isn't mind-body dichotomy here.

Are we living in a prison state?

The point is to prevent ourselves from straying anywhere near that.

You do not get the liberty to shoot people at will. Sorry.

At will? :rolleyes: Funny you don't blame the mobster politicians for that.

There was this hint of disapproval concerning Ragner's tactics expressed in Galt's Gulch, but Ragner still went out there. Not everyone can be a Ragner, and I suppose not everyone understands him either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mallory is special to Roark. To the layman, it would appear this is because Mallory is merely a good artist. But, being a good enough artist according to Roark's standards entails many things about Mallory's character. Think of it: if art is the expression of one's sense of life or metaphysical value judgements then Mallory's act of assassination would play in conjunction with that. It would be a part of his artistic vision. You cannot split up artistic vision and one's mental choices. This isn't mind-body dichotomy here.

So you're saying that because Mallory is an artist, everything he does is art? I'm a computer programmer - is everything I do a program?

The point is to prevent ourselves from straying anywhere near that.

And there are perfectly moral ways to do that - yours is not one of them.

At will? :rolleyes: Funny you don't blame the mobster politicians for that.

You suggest our mobster politicians are killing people at will now?

There was this hint of disapproval concerning Ragner's tactics expressed in Galt's Gulch, but Ragner still went out there. Not everyone can be a Ragner, and I suppose not everyone understands him either.

He did not go out killing people, and his name is RagnAr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A politician that does not respect individual rights is not a politician, but a mobster. Kill 'em all.

But in Western democracies we have methods to remove such people from office. You can vote for someone else. Or run against him or her if there is no one worth voting for (a situation very familiar to most Objectivists). If they are breaking the law there are criminal charges that can be laid, the crooked politician can be arrested.

Echoing other posters here, context is always of vital importance. If you are describing a country in such a state that politicians are flagrantly and grossly violating individual rights (imprisoning, executing or "disappearing" people without trial; engaging in censorship of the media; and other hallmarks of dictatorship), and doing so with impunity, then the context is entirely different. If the politician is part of a dictatorship, and there is no way to remove him or her from power using the avenues normally available to a free or semi-free country, then killing these thugs certainly is moral. A dictatorship is an outlaw and it is entirely moral for individuals to defend themselves against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrei and Ragnar had been pointed to as "men of action", but they are not the same at all. Andrei was an impotent pathetic failure who commits suicide and it was not an accident that his methods led to that end. Ragnar never kills anyone, and is only a supporting player of Galt's plan. Ragnar's actions would be useless on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This question has come up before on these forums, and perhaps something will be gained by straightfowardly addressing the question at this point. I assure you that we are not singling you out by splitting your (interesting) question into a separate thread.

OK, but in case the government is reading, I'm only posing a philosophical question, not actually planning to kill a politician.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...