Virtue And Capability In Atlas Shrugged

[Joynewyeary]

Is there supposed to be some law of reality that gives capabilities to those who are virtuous and that prevents those who are not virtuous from having capabilities?

For example, consider Ragnar Dannekjöld. In Atlas Shrugged, he is not just an ordinary pirate. He is a very effective pirate and he is widely feared. His justification is that he is fighting against other pirates and that those other pirates use the law to disarm their victims. Now, suppose that he existed in a world with no such governmental pirates. So his justification would disappear. Yet, suppose that he nevertheless tried to live as a pirate. Why would his lack of justification necessarily impair his competence as a pirate?

You might say, "His conscience would get in the way." Let's imagine a pirate who has no conscience. Would lack of conscience automatically take away his competence as a pirate?

[dondigitalia]

I don't understand what you mean by "some law of reality that gives capabilities to those who are virtuous and that prevents those who are not virtuous from having capabilities." Could you please explain?

Danneskjold's success as a pirate had nothing to do with his moral justification. He was successful because he was rational. Consistent application of reason leads to success. Rational men do not desire the unearned, which would be the ultimate goal of the kind of pirate you posited.

[Joynewyeary]

I don't understand what you mean by "some law of reality that gives capabilities to those who are virtuous and that prevents those who are not virtuous from having capabilities." Could you please explain?

What kind of explanation are you looking for?

Rational men do not desire the unearned [...]

In matters that are affected by chance events, rational men do not desire to receive the benefits of good fortune? It's hard to believe that you believe that.

I could understand if you said, "Good people do not intentionally or negligently violate the rights of others. Therefore, good people do not, in the pursuit of any benefit, violate the rights of others."

However, it seems that you have replaced "good" with "rational". This is the issue that I was trying to raise. Isn't there a difference between a capacity to function competently and an intention to avoid doing evil?

[AisA]

Is there supposed to be some law of reality that gives capabilities to those who are virtuous and that prevents those who are not virtuous from having capabilities?

If "capability" means a capacity to deal with reality, then yes, we can state one law: to "deal with something", one must be conscious of it; one cannot deal with that which one evades.

Objectivism holds that rationality -- an unwavering commitment to using reason to perceive reality -- is man's most important virtue. Evasion -- the willful un-focusing of one's mind in a refusal to see reality -- is his greatest vice.

Thus, there is indeed a connection between virtue and competence -- both depend on the use of one’s mind. The virtuous man is committed to the understanding of reality -- he holds reality as an unquestionable absolute.

The evil man is committed to the evasion of reality -- he holds blindness to reality as an unquestionable absolute. Which of the two will have the greater capability for dealing with reality?

Of course, the vast majority of people are not at either extreme, but the principle still holds: the extent to which a man is committed to reason is the extent to which he is capable of dealing with reality.

[dondigitalia]

What kind of explanation are you looking for?

You might start by defining your terms. What specifically do you mean by "capabilities?" What in Atlas Shrugged gave you the idea that there was a law of reality doling out these capabilities as a reward for virtuous action?

In matters that are affected by chance events, rational men do not desire to receive the benefits of good fortune?

Again, please give an example of such a situation and I will tell you whether it constitutes a rational desire. "Good fortune" can be a number of things, depending on the situation and what an individual sees as such. For instance, a criminal may look at a rich man leaving his front door unlocked as "good fortune," which will lead him to pursue unearned values.

However, it seems that you have replaced "good" with "rational".  This is the issue that I was trying to raise.  Isn't there a difference between a capacity to function competently and an intention to avoid doing evil?

There is a difference. Avoiding evil actions is not what makes an individual virtuous, although it certainly doesn't make him evil, either. Rationality is the fundamental virtue; it is the good. Virtuous actions are such because they aid man in achieving values. This is probably why your initial question confused me. The ability to achieve isn't a reward qua reward for virtuous action. Rather, virtues are virtues because they will lead one to succeed in obtaining/keeping rational values.

[JMeganSnow]

Um, Atlas Shrugged is a work of art, not a depiction of reality. In reality evil men can be hideously competent (at causing destruction) and good men may have a very low level of competence.

The evilest men, however, cannot cause fantastical amounts of damage unless good men allow them too. If you're talking laws of nature, then, "The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

[The Passion of the Koresh]

I was under the assumption that pirates, like bandits and murderers, did not have much in the way of a conscience to begin with. Maybe privateer would be a better word for Ragnar. Being the "best" pirate in the whole wide world is a pretty dubious honor. I don't think Ragnar would have "nevertheless" continued his one-man blockade if there was no justification. The skills you use to defend and protect honor and reason by violent action can always be converted into peaceable ones. If something is lost in the conversion, so be it. You'll just have to work a little harder and practice some more.

Competence, like money, is related to virtue in the way it is used and grown. If you hire someone for the purpose of assassinating another for immoral reasons, you have used money for evil, and the assassin's skill for evil as well. There is no saving you from what you have done; the assassin's professionalism and the fact that you reward his competence with your hard-earned cash cannot somehow make the assassination virtuous.

Competence is as good for you as good ol' H2O. If someone poisons your water supply with dioxin, you could argue that if not for the water, the dioxin wouldn't have reached you. This doesn't mean water itself was the problem.

Hmm...I have a quote from Bodyguard Services International Ltd

A true warrior doesn’t shoot from out of the dark, hide behind his mother’s bed sheet or pretend that ignorance and bravado can justify their claim to supremacy.

A true warrior does not fight for a “cause.”  He lives for honor and integrity, and to protect those whom may be harmed for another’s “cause.”

The last part is certainly food for thought. Is Ragnar fighting for a "cause"?

[Bryan]

Is there supposed to be some law of reality that gives capabilities to those who are virtuous and that prevents those who are not virtuous from having capabilities?

Yes, its called "The Force". If you live as a true Jedi and embrace The Force, you will be rerwarded with its power.

For example, consider Ragnar Dannekjöld.  In Atlas Shrugged, he is not just an ordinary pirate.  He is a very effective pirate and he is widely feared.  His justification is that he is fighting against other pirates and that those other pirates use the law to disarm their victims. 

Ragnar Dannekjold doesn't literally fight pirates, where did you get that idea?

[EC]

Uh, may the Force be with you, and stuff.

[Bryan]

Hmm...I have a quote from Bodyguard Services International Ltd

...

The last part is certainly food for thought.  Is Ragnar fighting for a "cause"?

You seem to be trying to imply that if you put the word cause in quotation marks it automatically has negative connotations. Is this the case, if so, why?

[The Passion of the Koresh]

You seem to be trying to imply that if you put the word cause in quotation marks it automatically has negative connotations.  Is this the case, if so, why?

Well, the exact quote from their site has those quotation marks around it. When I put "cause" in quotation marks in my subsequent question, I was emulating them in order to preserve the apparent meaning. I wasn't entirely sure what they meant, though, so I probably shouldn't have even bothered with the whole thing.