airborne Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 (edited) So I'm almost finished reading Atlas Shrugged. It has brought up the question for me, are we being immoral as Dagny Taggart is painted to be by helping "looters" through our production? I remember in the beginning there were not that many regulations and Galt and D'Anconia had already abandoned society. I'm struggling with the question, according to my understanding of Objectivism, of what one is supposed to do today according to the moral code? Hank Rearden accepted the moral code of society and took responsibility for it by giving the rights of his steel to the looters. Are we also accepting the moral code by abiding by irrational laws and ideas in today's society? and if so what can we possibly do when we have a "gun" pointed at us? Edited June 27, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 what can we possibly do when we have a "gun" pointed at us? That is, obviously, the big question. Government taxation is immoral. Many of the uses the government puts that money to (most, value wise) are immoral. It would be immoral to voluntarily support or endorse taxation, welfare, regulation etc. But you don't usually get that option. As you said, we all have a gun to our heads and, in that situation, must choose the path that benefits our lives the most. In my case, I pay the taxes while being vocal against them - and explaining why - whenever the issue is being discussed. On the other hand, I could probably get a better paying government job as a regulator or inspector of something or other. I don't, because then I'd be voluntarily taking part in the immoral system. So you must make each decision in context - and when under a gun, your life comes first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 It really is difficult to know when the time has come to go on strike. I think that time is when the fight is no longer a battle of ideas any more. I also don't think that time has come yet, though it may. I'm not looking forward to it if it does. I'm not sure I'd be much use to anyone (including myself) as a rebel or guerilla fighter. At present, the bad ideas still haven't won. We don't have real censorship, although the kind of ugly creeping censorship-by-default we do have is just as bad in the long run. We still retain a lot of our rights, by default, if not on principle. So it is still possible to win via persuasion and argument. The guns should only come out when there is nothing else to be done. Going to hide in the mountains or on an island somwhere is not a viable alternative for most people, so what you really have to do is look at your own life and ask: am I able to live and be happy within the limitations that are forced on me? Yes, I know I'm going to have to work harder than I should have to, and yes, I won't be getting as much reward as I should, but will I still get enough to make it worth my effort? If you can answer yes to that, then the time has not yet come to shrug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 It really is difficult to know when the time has come to go on strike. I think that time is when the fight is no longer a battle of ideas any more.And how does one determine that it is no longer a battle of ideas, other than total totalitarianism? A long long time ago, I read an article on the capmag site where Dr. Hurd said there are three things that determine whether it is time to strike or not. there are a number of common-sense, "grass-roots" developments that indicate Americans are not willing to surrender (such as the parent-led concern for education) today's politicians have a higher implicit regard for the system they are attempting to destroy than did the villains of Atlas Shrugged. we are still free to speak I'm not entirely sure why these 3 (and only these 3?) things should matter in a decision to strike though. I'm not sure I'd be much use to anyone (including myself) as a rebel or guerilla fighter.I'll save a spot for you on the ship when you're ready - we can always use some good novelists Am I able to live and be happy within the limitations that are forced on me? Yes, I know I'm going to have to work harder than I should have to, and yes, I won't be getting as much reward as I should, but will I still get enough to make it worth my effort? If you can answer yes to that, then the time has not yet come to shrug. Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 And how does one determine that it is no longer a battle of ideas, other than total totalitarianism? I think this statement sort of hints at it. Going to hide in the mountains or on an island somwhere is not a viable alternative for most people, so what you really have to do is look at your own life and ask: am I able to live and be happy within the limitations that are forced on me? Yes, I know I'm going to have to work harder than I should have to, and yes, I won't be getting as much reward as I should, but will I still get enough to make it worth my effort? If you can answer yes to that, then the time has not yet come to shrug. Makes sense. It sure doees. If I ever make the decision, "no," then I will immediately go on strike. I'll save a spot for you on the ship when you're ready - we can always use some good novelists I intend to be a good novelist. Is there a spot for me as well? I'm not sure I'd be much use to anyone (including myself) as a rebel or guerilla fighter. Not everyone from hte valley was a fighter when Galt was captured. You can be one of those that stay at home. Not everyone needs to fight, especially those that would not make much of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Hank Rearden accepted the moral code of society and took responsibility for it by giving the rights of his steel to the looters. Are we also accepting the moral code by abiding by irrational laws and ideas in today's society? and if so what can we possibly do when we have a "gun" pointed at us? Duck for cover. Or pretend to go along. Live to fight another day. History has a few lessons for us. The Essenes tried the "Galt's Gulch" approach. They repaired to isolated communities to get away from Roman tyranny. It did not work. The other extreme, "The Masada Approach", death before slavery etc etc, did not work either. Rome still prevailed until its own defects and contradictions took her down. As ugly as it sounds, hunker down and live is still probably the most feasible approach. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborne Posted June 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 A second question which follows is, is it worth it fighting for today's society? Rand praises the army, emotionally I agree however from what I understand logically something seems to conflicts. If I see innocent people being blown up by a suicide bomber an intense desire arises in me to kill those responsible. To blow them off the face of this earth. Yet on the other hand these same innocent people are sometimes those who could also be defined as "evil". Then the argument of whether you would rather have the evil who wants to completely eradicate you or the one who just wants to enslave you(which according to rand is the same thing - although a terrorist seems like a more immediate threat). So in terms of Objectivism you'd think the choices are what Robert J. Kolker posed. "Duck for cover. Or pretend to go along. Live to fight another day.". Makes sense but none of them would include joining the army and risking your life. However, Rand is extremely supportive of the army. What premise is needed to be checked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 What premise is needed to be checked? The premise that only evil people are getting hit and only they will be hit. You and those you care for could also be hit. Fighting in the army is a result of wanting to protect that which you value. Since you or those you value could get hit if the terrorists are not killed, it is rational to want to fight since it means protecting those you value. Yes, other people, even evil ones, are protected as well, but that is as an unavoidable side effect of your protecting you and your loved ones. The fact that everyone is protected is secondary, not primary. Nor is it the motive. You fight to protect you and your own, not the everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Airborne, it's always important to remember the context in which someone is speaking when you attribute an opinion to them. Ayn Rand was not highly supportive of "the military" . . . for instance she was sharply critical of the draft during the Vietnam war. She was proud, however, of America's history as the freeist nation on earth and the astounding accomplishments of its civilized military. A lot of those accomplishments are in the past, though, and exist now only as traditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.