Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Was it Just to let Rearden think that Dagny was killed?

Rate this topic


Olex

Recommended Posts

A short background from Atlas Shrugged:

Dagny crashes into Atlantis. Rearden learns of the crash and thinks she is dead.

At this time Dagny and Galt are in Atlantis. Francisco joins them, and learns that Dagny is not dead.

Francisco indirectly asks Galt if they could let Rearden know that Dagny is alive.

Galt explains to Francisco that the answer is no.

Question:

Was this good to do? Was is it just to do? Would it be unjust to do otherwise?

My Thoughts:

My "feeling" is that it is just and right, though it results in Rearden's pain. Of course, feeling of justice is not enough. I am building a complete logical chain, but I have not completed it yet.

Does anyone have thoughts or links that would help me? Thanks.

-------

Here are the relevant snippets from Atlas Shrugged:

Pages 763-764: (Dagny talks to Galt.)

Then she heard her own voice asking suddenly, involuntarily, and she knew that this was the treason she had wanted to escape, "Do you permit any communication with outside world?"

"No."

"Not any? Not even a note without return address?"

"No."

"Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

"Not from here. Not during this month. Not to outsiders at any time."

She noticed that she was avoiding his eyes, and she forced herself to lift her head and face him. His glance had changed; it was watchful, unmoving, implacably perceptive. He asked, looking at her as if he knew the reason of her query, "Do you wish to ask for a special exception?"

"No," she answered, holding his glance.

Page 769:

After a long moment, he [Francisco] turned to Galt. "John," his voice sounded peculiarly solemn, "could we notify those outside that Dagny is alive . . . in case there's somebody who . . . who'd feel as I did?"

Galt was looking straight at him. "Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of remaining outside?"

Francisco dropped his eyes, but answered firmly, "No."

"Pity, Francisco?"

"Yes. Forget it. You're right."

-------

Here is my logic so far.

The world outside is out to drain people of ability to death. Galt starts his quest, and builds with fellow "warriors" a safe place where they can live. One of the rules is "No communication with outside world." Dagny breaks into their world. Galt decides to hold her there for a month. Dagny is still one of outsiders, and so is Rearden.

Now, a key point is that Rearden's grief is the consequence of his choice - to remain outside and to "feed" the looters. This is where I have a problem.

How come it is not morally good to let Rearden know of Dagny's well-being so that he doesn't suffer and doesn't risk his life flying a plane in the mountains? It is Galt's choice to hold her hostage after all.

My thoughts are that Rearden by remaining outside is working against Galt and for looters. Thus, his actions are wrong.

(By the way, is it also "morally bad" ? Note: This is not the same as saying Rearden is morally wrong; according to his own knowledge and effort he is doing his best to figure it out, but this does not change the effects of his actions.)

Whatever he suffers from it is his own fault. Now, this is simple with material things and "looters." But what about those who are aware of Dagny's and Rearden's situation?

It seems (I'm not sure yet) that the main reason is the rule set in the Gulch. By breaking into it, Dagny had become the "scab," and Galt is morally good in following the rule and letting Rearden suffer his consequences. Furthermore, it seems that it would be unjust to let Rearden know of Dagny until she either goes back to the world or Rearden shrugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt doesn't do it as punishment to Rearden or because of the rule, he does it for selfish reasons: he doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters. His comment to Fransisco was to show Fransisco that he was overly concerned with someone else's feeling at the expense of his safety. And least that what I got from my reading of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Hank getting a message with no return address from Dagny just saying that she is still exists?

Aside from the authorities figuring out that Galt is somehow behind this which is a stretch, there is the utterly outlandish possibility that Rearden may have the impression that Dagny did die and that he is getting the message from the afterlife.

I just said that for the sake of amusement. Only kidding!

But I do think it is heartless not to inform Hank. If I were Dagny my reaction to the refusal would be to demand to be released immediately. How can Galt justify what is tantamount to kidnapping?

After all Dagny is supposed to be in love with Hank not John Galt at that point.

galt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can Galt justify what is tantamount to kidnapping?
He -- and others in the valley -- are outlaws, in a sense; or soon will be. If some person were to stumble upon the valley and then go tell the world, it would undermine the secret of the valley. Imagine for a moment that James Taggart came trekking to the valley, by chance. Someone like that might try to sneak out to reveal its location. Someone like that might have to be imprisoned. So, the real question is: how can Galt justify letting Dagny go free, after a month?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters. His comment to Fransisco was to show Fransisco that he was overly concerned with someone else's feeling at the expense of his safety. And least that what I got from my reading of it.
I don't know about that, though I agree that there was a risk. Galt says "Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of remaining outside?", implying that the decision to not tell Rearden is a matter of not giving an outsider relief, moreso than a safety issue.

Personally, I think it's an interesting indicator of the difference between Francisco vs. Galt. Aside from the safety issues, I would have though similarly to Francisco, in wanting to save a friend from a lot of heartache. 'Course, this is the same Galt who is angling after Francisco's love, and doesn't say so for a long, long time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... he doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters.
No, see the following quote from my post:

[Dagny:] "Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

[Galt:] "Not from here. Not during this month. Not to outsiders at any time."

As you can see, your theory doesn't hold true by judging Galt's response. His decision was made on a different principle.

----

From talking to a friend, I have figured out the following.

The rule that Galt follows was placed in the valley for a reason. This reason is the separation of the valley from the rest of the looters' world, which includes not working or worrying to save anybody from the consequence of remaining looters' "slave" (i.e. of remaining "outside").

Now, with this principle and rule in place, let's look at Dagny and Rearden.

Rearden will suffer from thinking that Dagny is dead. Is Galt responsible for his inaction in this respect? This means: Is Galt responsible for making sure that any of Galt's inactions do not cause Rearden pain? Clearly not - one is not responsible for making sure that one did not allow a negative effect to continue to another individual.

Now, to the matter of the hostage. Dagny did break into the valley - thus endangering the entire population. Note, however Galt also disallows Dagny to gain any information about the valley or from from valley that she could use outside to help the looters in either discovering the valley or in using the knowledge to improve looters' life (by new scientific knowledge, for example).

Now, the big question: does a Galt have a right to keep Dagny as a "hostage" in the valley after she breaks into it? Given that the valley's population would be under a threat if it was discovered, Galt does indeed have this right - the right to protect the valley from the rest of the insane world. In this case, Rearden who is actually working to help looters by remaining outside and keep producing for looters is help the looters and working against the valley, and is providing the means for looters to attack the valley (in the case when looters discover Atlantis).

Thus, Galt was just in his action and inaction with regards to Rearden and Dagny.

( :D and I found my answer to my question as well )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, see the following quote from my post:

[Dagny:] "Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

From talking to a friend, I have figured out the following.

The rule that Galt follows was placed in the valley for a reason. This reason is the separation of the valley from the rest of the looters' world, which includes not working or worrying to save anybody from the consequence of remaining looters' "slave" (i.e. of remaining "outside").

Now, with this principle and rule in place, let's look at Dagny and Rearden.

Rearden will suffer from thinking that Dagny is dead. Is Galt responsible for his inaction in this respect? This means: Is Galt responsible for making sure that any of Galt's inactions do not cause Rearden pain? Clearly not - one is not responsible for making sure that one did not allow a negative effect to continue to another individual.

Of course one is not responsible - this was never the question.

The question is Galt and Dagny's hierarchy of values, and what their choice reflects about it.

If I value someone, and I know they are about to risk their life for nothing - the rational choice, assuming I have nothing to lose by doing it - would be to try to save that value - to save my friend.

What does it say about me if I do nothing to save those I love / value , and explain it by saying "I'm not my brother's keeper". Not anything good I can say that. There has to be a good reason for choosing not to act to keep a value (Rearden) - and I still don't see what the other value is.

The fact that one is not "morally bound" to spare pain from others is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not possible that Galt intended this as a test for Dagny and Francisco to see what they would do? He asked both of them whether they wanted to make a special exception and both of them backed down from challenging him on the issue. Dagny because she remembered that she had crashed the gate and therefore must abide by whatever the people in the valley decided; Francisco because it was part of his wider battle--the battle of not giving his mind back to the looters. This is, in fact, how Galt phrased the respective question he asked them, after all.

Remember that Galt reminded Dagny, especially, that she and Hank were his enemies. Not enemies-in-spirit, but enemies-in-fact, because they were the only ones that had the ability to destroy him. Regardless of whether or not he liked them, when you are fighting a war it does not serve your purpose to provide help and consolation to the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Hank getting a message with no return address from Dagny just saying that she is still exists?
Yes, I can. For example, Dagny got a message from Rearden (after he met Galt) which came from Atlantis, most likely.

Aside from the authorities figuring out that Galt is somehow behind this which is a stretch, there is the utterly outlandish possibility that Rearden may have the impression that Dagny did die and that he is getting the message from the afterlife.
Huh? What would make him think so?

I just said that for the sake of amusement. Only kidding!
What is the amusement here? About what? And for what purpose?

But I do think it is heartless not to inform Hank. If I were Dagny my reaction to the refusal would be to demand to be released immediately. How can Galt justify what is tantamount to kidnapping?
See my previous post.

After all Dagny is supposed to be in love with Hank not John Galt at that point.
Wrong. If you read those parts again, you will see that Dagny herself thinks otherwise - and she knows then already that Rearden is history for her.

Of course one is not responsible - this was never the question.
It is an important building block, so I had to bring it up as a fundamental in this thread, so that other points be explicitly built from it.

The question is Galt and Dagny's hierarchy of values, and what their choice reflects about it.
That would be correct. The difference of opinion here is due to difference in reading the context of the situation in the book. Let's take a look.

If I value someone, and I know they are about to risk their life for nothing - the rational choice, assuming I have nothing to lose by doing it - would be to try to save that value - to save my friend.
This is true, acting on one's hierarchy of values is morally required and is morally good.

This is actually a different question then the ones I asked in the beginning of this thread. I asked if it was OK not to send a letter to Rearden, whereas you ask if it is OK to let Rearden fly over the mountain and risk his life (however, I would question the amount of risk that is implied in your comment) to search for Dagny.

What would have Galt lose in case of letting know Rearden that Dagny is alive? He would break one of the most important principles that the valley is built on. I have described that in my previous post - and I would like to see your comments on the part where I describe this (it's the same post you quoted me from) before I go on.

Is it not possible that Galt intended this as a test for Dagny and Francisco to see what they would do?
This has no relevance to the question of the morality of his actions. And since, this is the thread on the morality of this actions, this quote serves no purpose in this thread as well.

Remember that Galt reminded Dagny, especially, that she and Hank were his enemies. Not enemies-in-spirit, but enemies-in-fact, because they were the only ones that had the ability to destroy him. Regardless of whether or not he liked them, when you are fighting a war it does not serve your purpose to provide help and consolation to the enemy.
Now, this part is true. (And relates the question of Ifat.) I do not know who is this response directed to, but it ought not be directed at me, since I wrote just the same in the post before yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has no relevance to the question of the morality of his actions. And since, this is the thread on the morality of this actions, this quote serves no purpose in this thread as well.

Sure it does. If someone breaks into my house and starts rummaging around, then asks to use the telephone when I appear, I'm probably going to say something like "I don't let strangers use my phone." If they back down and leave without making a case, that's their problem.

There's a difference between acting morally and being "nice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not aware that Rearden ever chose to remain outside. I do not think that Galt ever had an appointment with Rearden to ask him to join the strike and to explain what the strikers were all about. The closest was the encounter with Ragnar which is one of my favorite scenes but even then the existence of the bar of gold was only a clue or a hint. Rearden didn't choose to remain outside, although we can only imagine that his love of his work, as was true of Dagny, would have made it difficult for him to give it up and walk away as others like Francisco did.

I think that Galt and Dagny were smart enough to figure out a way to inform Rearden without revealing the existence or location of Galt's Gulch. Dagny might have killed two birds with one stone by sending Rearden a Dear John letter. Ouch! but inevitable. That would have replaced one pain with another. But at least he would have known she was alive. One fickle chick. If I were writing the book I would not have Dagny fall in love with Galt but remain in love with Rearden instead. Actually I sympathize with Francisco who was her first love.

I have to read the book again. I wish that Francisco could have found a way to explain what he was doing or just that he was doing something so that Dagny would have understood that he was not the playboy he was presenting himself as. It cost Francisco too much to have to lose Dagny in the process. But that would have been another story altogether. I would have found a way for Eddy Willers to be admitted into the valley as well rather than let him die of dehydration in the desert. :lol:

galt (no relation)

Edited by galtgulch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it does. If someone breaks into my house and starts rummaging around, then asks to use the telephone when I appear, I'm probably going to say something like "I don't let strangers use my phone." If they back down and leave without making a case, that's their problem.

There's a difference between acting morally and being "nice".

Wait, did Dagny intentionally break into the valley?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not aware that Rearden ever chose to remain outside. I do not think that Galt ever had an appointment with Rearden to ask him to join the strike and to explain what the strikers were all about. The closest was the encounter with Ragnar which is one of my favorite scenes but even then the existence of the bar of gold was only a clue or a hint. Rearden didn't choose to remain outside, although we can only imagine that his love of his work, as was true of Dagny, would have made it difficult for him to give it up and walk away as others like Francisco did.

Dagny wasn`t outright approached either; if memory serves me correctly, even after she had resigned, when Fransisco came to her cabin, he didn`t outright approach her to come with him (though being very emotional at that scene, he was close to doing so before getting her to admit that she should quit).

The strikers`s method, I believe, was first making their candidates for strike come to the realization that they are "the guiltiest people in the world", that they are helping the looters, and only then approach them with the practical option of going on strike.

Look at the number of times Fransisco approached Rearden, talked to him, and realized that he has not yet come to grasp the above realization.

So Rearden did in fact choose not to except the premise that would have let him to the gulch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logical consequence of valuing someone is to act in order to keep that value (and/or gain it).

Keeping value would mean, providing assistance in case the friend is facing some physical or mental danger; like teaching him a better philosophy, giving him moral support at rough times, giving him information that would save him pain and save him from risking his life.

This investment of effort in keeping/gaining a value of this nature should be according to how much of a value it is, and how much is the cost compared to the value.

In this case however, of special circumstances, when Rearden is also an enemy, certain values should not be given, and one (like Francisco or Galt) can't act consistently to keep this value.

There are certain things that a friend will not want to give to Rearden, even if it contradicts the goal of keeping Rearden and enjoying his friendship.

Certain benefits and values cannot be given away; which are values that might be used to defeat one's war, which one is fighting against Rearden.

Now:

Not letting Rearden know that Dagny is not dead is rational only if this value is from that type which can serve to defeat one's war, because the default is to want to keep the value which is Rearden.

If there was no war, rational selfish choice would be to act in order to keep the value (Rearden).

In this case, giving Rearden knowledge that Dagny is not dead, will not affect Rearden's decision about going on strike or continue working. The knowledge of Dagny's state is irrelevant to his knowledge and decision making about his work.

Therefor, if there is a way to let Rearden know that Dagny is alive, without jeopardizing the well being of valley people, this would be the rational choice, since the effort of sending a note far exceeds the value of Rearden's mental and physical health (which might both be damaged as a result of thinking Dagny is dead).

After Reading Galtgulch's idea about Dagny writing Rearden that she met someone else, fell in love with him, and will only come back in a month or more would actually reduce the danger for valley people (because then Rearden would not be flying over the mountains searching for Dagny's plane).

So unless the explanation is that they were not able to come up with this idea, I don't see how this was a logical decision by Galt or Dagny or Francisco.

Some arguments were raised about letting a man face the consequences of his own actions. I will now explain what I see wrong with this argument when it is applied in the context of friendship:

If Rearden's ideas are bad, and they lead him to make decisions that hurt him, the rational consideration that a friend ought to have here is what is the most efficient way to have Rearden learn the lesson and realize his ideas are wrong? this, and only this is rational, because it brings one closer of keeping and enjoying the value which is Rearden. Thoughts like "let him suffer the results of his own consequences, because he deserves it" are not rational, but mean and stupid, and in fact only bring one further away from enjoying friendship with Rearden.

Link to comment
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...