What Would... John Galt Do?

[Groovenstein]

On the one hand, yes, it is something of a cliche. On the other hand, what a marvelous way to infiltrate pop culture. One word that people would (hopefully) come to associate with Objectivism? Can you think of a better single word that gets across so much of what Objectivism is about?

[Adrian Hester]

On the one hand, yes, it is something of a cliche. On the other hand, what a marvelous way to infiltrate pop culture.

It rubs me the wrong way; it savors far too much of the Christian rip-offs of commercial slogans, like "Christ--He's the real thing!" or...no, I won't repeat any more. (But boy, it sure would be great if some corporation took the people who made those shirts to court for trademark violation. That'll never happen though, alas.)

One time I was riding on the bus near a heavily-tattooed fellow in black leather with a variety of piercings who was wearing a WWJD bracelet. I forget how it came up, but he said that in fact for him it stood for "World Wrestling Juvenile Delinquent."

Edited July 11, 2006 by Adrian Hester

[Groovenstein]

I'm sorry, Adrian, are you referring to "Think" or to "What Would John Galt Do"? I was referring to the former. I am unaware of what commercial slogan that would arguably be ripping off and I would appreciate if you would bring one to my attention.

As to your religious slogan rip-off people, that seems like a tough case to win. A successful trademark infringement claim requires a likelihood of confusion. Would the hypothetical reasonable consumer think that soda company X actually put out religious apparel? I doubt it. Maybe they could argue dilution [15 U.S.C. 1125(c )], but I don't remember the ins and outs of that enough to assess such an argument.

[Adrian Hester]

I'm sorry, Adrian, are you referring to "Think" or to "What Would John Galt Do"? I was referring to the former.

Ah, sorry, I was thinking of the latter. Well, imagine your quote replaced by one about WWJGD.

[JMeganSnow]

"Think" is already the IBM corporate slogan, I believe.

[Groovenstein]

That does ring a bell. Okay, so that one is out of the running.

[DavidOdden]

Can you think of a better single word that gets across so much of what Objectivism is about?

"Existence".

[softwareNerd]

For jewellery, perhaps symbols would be better than words. They might stand for Existence, Reason, Productiveness and so on. The downside is that other might think you're a freemason!

[Bold Standard]

But not the essential or final approach, right? The final, and essential approach is confirmation with one's own judgement and reason. The reason you have to ask yourself what would Jesus do is because one can't reason out the mixed bag of contradictions that is Christian ethics. Not true of Objectivism, and for sure, and Objectivist woudl NEVER stop at "John Galt would do this so I will too...". I'm with Rational Cop on this one. I think the question is second-handed.

No, not the final, most essential approach to morality. Still a valuable tool, though. There's nothing wrong with or second-handed about the question in itself. Only that it recalls a popular Christian slogan. I know I wouldn't want the Christians stealing our slogans-- imagine "Who is Jesus Christ?" or "I AM is I AM" showing up on a Christian t-shirt when Objectivism gets more popular than Christianity.

Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal.

Observe that every religion has a mythology—a dramatized concretization of its moral code embodied in the figures of men who are its ultimate product. (The fact that some of these figures are more convincing than others depends on the comparative rationality or irrationality of the moral theory they exemplify.)

This does not mean that art is a substitute for philosophical thought: without a conceptual theory of ethics, an artist would not be able successfully to concretize an image of the ideal. But without the assistance of art, ethics remains in the position of theoretical engineering: art is the model-builder.

Many readers of The Fountainhead have told me that the character of Howard Roark helped them to make a decision when they faced a moral dilemma. They asked themselves: "What would Roark do in this situation?"—and, faster than their mind could identify the proper application of all the complex principles involved, the image of Roark gave them the answer. They sensed, almost instantly, what he would or would not do—and this helped them to isolate and to identify the reasons, the moral principles that would have guided him. Such is the psycho-epistemological function of a personified (concretized) human ideal.

It is important to stress, however, that even though moral values are inextricably involved in art, they are involved only as a consequence, not as a causal determinant: the primary focus of art is metaphysical, not ethical. Art is not the "handmaiden" of morality, its basic purpose is not to educate, to reform or to advocate anything. The concretization of a moral ideal is not a textbook on how to become one. The basic purpose of art is not to teach, but to show—to hold up to man a concretized image of his nature and his place in the universe.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Bold Standard

[OwenKellogg]

How about this one. IWDWBFMAIYDLISI. I Will Do What's Best For Me And If You Don't Like It Shove It.

[tobyk100]

Well, I love the idea of WWJGD. Imagining Galt's approach when facing a dilemma is like using your sense of life when facing an artwork. It allows you to take many concepts involving morality and sum them up in a character.

WBFM

What's Best for Me?

Edited July 20, 2006 by tobyk100

[Mimpy]

I love the idea of WWJGD! I think I'm going to purchase that bumper sticker for myself.

[Nate]

WWFDCASd'A? aww too hell with it