Did Roark have the right to dynamite Cortlandt?

[epistemologue]

Well?

 

Also, how do you explain the difference between the Temple and Cortlandt? The Temple was defaced and he seemed unfazed; Cortlandt was defaced and he dynamited it.

Edited October 26, 2014 by epistemologue

[dream_weaver]

Did you take the chance to review:

Howard Roark blowing up Cortlandt was not Objectivist, and neither is

[epistemologue]

Nice, thanks

[epistemologue]

It seems like this is primarily an argument for the primacy of reality, of substance, of spirit, as opposed to primacy of the label, of a mere explicit statement, or the letter of the law.

 

Yikes! Keating had no right to make a contract with Roark dictating the construction of someone's else's property. Keating was not the owner, didn't even have a contract to build it at that point in time. The contract between Keating and Roark is totally irrelevant to the ownership of the building. Roark had no commitment from the owners on the building whatsoever. He knew the deal with Keating was a secret, knew full well Keating was completely untrustworthy, and knew Keating had no possible way to ensure their contract was respected. And, clearly blowing someone's building up for no legitimate reason is aggression, regardless of Roark's excuses. Not his property, no contract, no right to destroy it. In reality, Keating was at his most human and most ethical point in the story when he admitted his incompetence to Roark and then *tried* to argue the building should be built as is. He had absolutely no way to enforce his non-contract, which doesn't excuse his failure but then it doesn't excuse Roark making the deal despite knowing this fact either. Roark made a mistake and then amplified it by committing aggression, much as I like his character otherwise.

 

 

Also, see Roark and Dominique's sex scene for example

Edited October 26, 2014 by epistemologue

[epistemologue]

This was a good point:

 

 

c. but the real issue of course which you fail to mention is that this is not the reason the government cited for violating it's contract with Keating. What is the real reason? Well maybe actually reading the book might help. Let's go look:

"When Keating invoked his contract, he was told: "All right, go ahead and try to sue the government. Try it.""

That is the only legal mention of his contract in the entire book. It obviously implies that he had concrete terms in the contract, ie that he had terms by which t stand. Otherwise he would have been told "Oh, our contract says we can change the design at our discretion." He's not told that. He's told try to sue.

Nor was he told "oh well you've breached your contract and by the terms of article 2.3 we have the right to change the design." He was in effect told, you can't do anything, government can do anything it wants. Ahem, and you suggest that this is not a moral and legal afront and that Roark by virtue of his contract doesn't have ground? Oy, someone needs to go to law school, eh? Roark is certainly justified in taking his case directly to the government owners of this project. He has a contract with Keating, Keating has a contract with the govt, and neither is in breach nor does the govt have remedy.

The only principle Roark violated was the one that suggests that you don't take the law into your own hands, but then, against a government that is clearly exercising arbitrary, illegal power, well one could claim that his is an act of revolution, and rightly so. And the fact is that he followed that principle and was willing to suffer the consequences.

 

 

although of course there's still a question of whether this vigilante justice of bombing a building is really within his rights.

Edited October 26, 2014 by epistemologue

[Reidy]

Bringing a test case is one of the stock exceptions to the principle that you don't take the law into your own hands.  Rand herself noted this in The Cashing-In: the Student "Rebellion".  That's what Roark was doing.

[epistemologue]

Bringing a test case is one of the stock exceptions to the principle that you don't take the law into your own hands.  Rand herself noted this in The Cashing-In: the Student "Rebellion".  That's what Roark was doing.

Oh, that's interesting, thanks.

 

Still, it seems like he should have tried to make his case through the legal system first, no?

Edited October 26, 2014 by epistemologue

[A is A]

Well?

 

Also, how do you explain the difference between the Temple and Cortlandt? The Temple was defaced and he seemed unfazed; Cortlandt was defaced and he dynamited it.

The temple was private property, Cortlandt was public property.

[A is A]

Oh, that's interesting, thanks.

 

Still, it seems like he should have tried to make his case through the legal system first, no?

You want him to use the legal system to fight against a government project? 

[epistemologue]

You want him to use the legal system to fight against a government project? 

 

Well my next point was that there seem to be some issues with that approach. First of all, it was implied that you can't sue the government and win ("All right, go ahead and try to sue the government. Try it."), and also this could take a long time, people would move into the building, etc, and it would not be possible to simply destroy it at that point in case he lost in court and decided to "bring a test case", as it were...

[epistemologue]

Oh, haha:

 

"I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken."

Edited October 27, 2014 by epistemologue