Screeeeeech! What? I don't get this!

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

I can't believe Dagny shot the guard at Project F.

Why did Ayn Rand include this? Why not just have the guard step aside in his indecision? Why not just have them outsmart him in some way?

Isn't this contradictory to the idea of never initiating force against another man?

I understand that Galt is behind the door, but it just seems strange that shooting the befuddled guard would be justifiable.

Am I the only one who thought this?

[Laure 0]

Hi -

Lots of people have that reaction to the scene. I personally was not bothered by it, though. I think what Ayn Rand was trying to say was, "Look at this guy - he literally won't bother to think, to save his life!" All he had to do was get out of the way, but he was so insecure that he wouldn't even take responsibility for that one decision. He made Dagny choose for him.

[RayK 0]

I do not see a problem with the shooting at all. The guard is part of the enemy and he and others like him are the one's that you will most likely encounter in a battle. They, James Taggart and his ilk, are the one's that have used force, Dagny responded by using force backed by reason. And the guard chose his side, but did not want to be held responsible for his choice which is somewhat like the German soldiers during WWII.

[Carlos 0]

I do not see a problem with the shooting at all. The guard is part of the enemy and he and others like him are the one's that you will most likely encounter in a battle. They, James Taggart and his ilk, are the one's that have used force, Dagny responded by using force backed by reason. And the guard chose his side, but did not want to be held responsible for his choice which is somewhat like the German soldiers during WWII.

I agree with Ray.

Regardless of whatever the guard explicitly thought on the issue, he made his choice long ago through his actions by serving as the military force in a totalitarian government. By even "innocently" waffling on what to do we was wasting precious seconds for Dagni because Galt's life hung in the balance, and this man was serving as an obstacle to her saving him.

The sad thing is that probably the majority of evil's power in this world comes from men who aren't evil and don't consciously want to do bad things, but through refusing to face the responsibility of independent thought they become obedient servants to the darkest of thugs on our planet.

[ewv 0]

I can't believe Dagny shot the guard at Project F.

Why did Ayn Rand include this? Why not just have the guard step aside in his indecision? Why not just have them outsmart him in some way?

Isn't this contradictory to the idea of never initiating force against another man?

I understand that Galt is behind the door, but it just seems strange that shooting the befuddled guard would be justifiable.

Am I the only one who thought this?

Ayn Rand thought of it. The guard was physically imprisoning an innocent person against his will to be tortured. If that isn't 'initiation of force' what is?

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

So to deepen my understanding of objectivist ethics:

Was she justified in shooting him because he was the greatest mind? Or because she loved him? Or just because he was an innocent victim of torture?

I ask this because there are other instances of people being held against their will or being tortured in the book. I could see Galt being justified in killing his assailants, but to say that someone is justified in killing for the sake of another person seems different. It's not that I think she wasn't justified, but I'm just trying to understand what makes her justified by the ethic of the novel.

Would she have been justified in rescuing any victim? Would she be wrong not to rescue someone if she knew about their circumstances? To what extent would she be expected to take such a risk for the sake of another? At what point would it become a form of collectivism?

It seemed striking to me that she took that action, and somewhat out of place. It seemed to be a direct ethical statement by the author.

I am thinking of this in terms of our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. To what extent are we justified in waging war? Is it enough that people are oppressed by a totalitarian government, or does there need to be some aspect of our own interest involved? If the former, then to what extent is it our responsibility to do so? I would imagine that there is no responsibility to intervene but the right to do so, judging by my very limited reading of these ideas. A lot of people say we should not use the justification of totalitarian oppression for these conflict because there are other people elsewhere in the world who are held under the same type of oppression and we do not intervene? I can see the right of us to intervene without the responsibility to do so elsewhere, but I'm curious if others have had these thoughts.

Is there a text where this ethic is spelled out directly?

[RayK 0]

Is there a text where this ethic is spelled out directly?

Once again, I would offer that you read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I, or we, could spend hours trying to explain to you what is moral, but without proper context and hierarchy it could confuse you even more. I would also offer that you read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand which will give you Objectivism in it's proper order/hierarchy.

But, to give you some idea of what is right. Man has the right to defend his life and that is what we are doing during a war except that we have delegated our right to defend ourselves to our government/military. It is immoral for a country to waste the lives of it's citizens to supposedly free people in other countries, especially if they are philosophically total opposites. Although it could be moral to defend or help an ally as it would be in the defense of one's selfishishly chosen values.

[ewv 0]

So to deepen my understanding of objectivist ethics:

Was she justified in shooting him because he was the greatest mind? Or because she loved him? Or just because he was an innocent victim of torture?

I ask this because there are other instances of people being held against their will or being tortured in the book. I could see Galt being justified in killing his assailants, but to say that someone is justified in killing for the sake of another person seems different. It's not that I think she wasn't justified, but I'm just trying to understand what makes her justified by the ethic of the novel.

Would she have been justified in rescuing any victim? Would she be wrong not to rescue someone if she knew about their circumstances? To what extent would she be expected to take such a risk for the sake of another? At what point would it become a form of collectivism?

Anyone would have the right to rescue an innocent victim in that context of an outlaw government seizing and torturing the victim, but no one is obligated to. Galt was an especially important value to Dagny and the others in the Valley and it was in their interest to rescue him.

It seemed striking to me that she took that action, and somewhat out of place. It seemed to be a direct ethical statement by the author.

It was.

I am thinking of this in terms of our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. To what extent are we justified in waging war? Is it enough that people are oppressed by a totalitarian government, or does there need to be some aspect of our own interest involved? If the former, then to what extent is it our responsibility to do so? I would imagine that there is no responsibility to intervene but the right to do so, judging by my very limited reading of these ideas. A lot of people say we should not use the justification of totalitarian oppression for these conflict because there are other people elsewhere in the world who are held under the same type of oppression and we do not intervene? I can see the right of us to intervene without the responsibility to do so elsewhere, but I'm curious if others have had these thoughts.

This has been discussed on the Forum previously. A free country has a right to defend itself. Anyone has a right to knock off a totalitarian government but has no obligation to do so, and a proper government of a free society must be limited to defending the country, not using its citizens resources (and lives) to play world policeman. Leonard Peikoff paid for advertisements in major newspapers consisting of his own essays on the proper response to 9/11. The debate has been over where was the most appropriate place for the US to attack and whether or not the Bush administration chose targets of secondary importance while ignoring more important ones, and the extent to which he engaged in sacrificial "nation building" at our expense not necessary for the war in Iraq or fighting the Muslim terrorists.

Is there a text where this ethic is spelled out directly?

Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics", the first chapter in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness, is the most fundamental statement of her ethics. If you mean in particular the ethical approach to war, see especially the essay "The Nature of Government", also in The Virtue of Selfishness, and her anthology Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, particularly the essays "The Roots of War" and "The Wreckage of the Consensus". But these essays depend on other more fundamental ones, especially "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Finish reading Atlas first, and probably also The Fountainhead, before going into the non-fiction philosophical essays. Then turn to Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for a systematic account of the whole philosophy, including the nature of ethics and its implications in a social context: rights, proper government, and war.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Thank you! I now have a syllabus.

Can you direct me to where the original discussion on this topic is?

So, it was not good to attack secondary targets because they were not of interest to us, not the more mainstream criticism that it's "imposing our moral values" on them? And, is it ethical to attack for our own interests, only in defense. In other words, if we were attacking because a different leadership in that country might be more cooperative with us economically would that end, in itself, be justified or would it also have to have some element of counterattack? And what about the idea of "preemptive attack?"

BTW...I just finished Atlas tonight. My family all applauded for me when I made the announcement, then sighed when I went straight to the bookshelf and picked up The Fountainhead. I have just read the first two pages of The Fountainhead, and I'm stoked already!

[Arnold 0]

So, it was not good to attack secondary targets because they were not of interest to us,..

Correct

And, is it ethical to attack for our own interests, only in defense. In other words, if we were attacking because a different leadership in that country might be more cooperative with us economically would that end, in itself, be justified or would it also have to have some element of counterattack? And what about the idea of "preemptive attack?"

If you refer to The Virtue Of Selfishness and Objectivist Ethics, you will discover that all such questions must be answered from the perspective of individual rights and self defence. A preemptive attack is, or should be for self defence.

[Nicolaus Nemeth 0]

I can't believe Dagny shot the guard at Project F.

Isn't this contradictory to the idea of never initiating force against another man?

I'd say it is not contradictory to the idea of never initiating force against someone because Dagny didn't initiate force. The government had by use of force created an environment in which rational behavior would not necessarily lead to a beneficial outcome. Ethical behavior is ethical because it leads to a flourishing life. However, in the end-of-the-book context ethical behavior doesn't lead to success or at least doesn't have to lead to success. Instead, the government itself or others using the government may subvert to different outcomes how things would have happened without force.

[Arnold 0]

However, in the end-of-the-book context ethical behavior doesn't lead to success or at least doesn't have to lead to success. .

The behavior was ethical in the context. You may be comparing her behavior to that she would employ in a normal context, but this was not that normal context. Moral actions must be judged in context, not by some "fixed" reference.

[ewv 0]

However, in the end-of-the-book context ethical behavior doesn't lead to success or at least doesn't have to lead to success. .

The behavior was ethical in the context. You may be comparing her behavior to that she would employ in a normal context, but this was not that normal context. Moral actions must be judged in context, not by some "fixed" reference.

It was also "rational behavior" which did "lead to a beneficial outcome".

[ewv 0]

Ethical behavior is ethical because it leads to a flourishing life.

Ethical behavior is ethical because it is based on the requirements of life as a rational being as the standard. Because of that, ethical behavior leads to happiness, which is the goal, not the standard. There have been many people throughout history with mixed ethical actions who have had generally "flourishing lives".

[ewv 0]

Thank you! I now have a syllabus.

Can you direct me to where the original discussion on this topic is?

There have been several threads; you'll have to search.

So, it was not good to attack secondary targets because they were not of interest to us, ...

The secondary targets were of "interest" and useful but not enough.

... not the more mainstream criticism that it's "imposing our moral values" on them?

We have a right to defend outselves against the perpetrators regardless of what they think of our moral values, which in the case of the Muslim terrorists was their repudiation of our values and our right to live. There are no "dictators' rights".

And, is it ethical to attack for our own interests, only in defense.

Yes.

In other words, if we were attacking because a different leadership in that country might be more cooperative with us economically would that end, in itself, be justified or would it also have to have some element of counterattack?

Economics is peaceful trade and is not a justification for a physical attack, nor is war in the interest of traders. See the essay "The Roots of War" mentioned above.

And what about the idea of "preemptive attack?"

A preemptive attack is in self defense because it is preempting their attack.

BTW...I just finished Atlas tonight. My family all applauded for me when I made the announcement, then sighed when I went straight to the bookshelf and picked up The Fountainhead. I have just read the first two pages of The Fountainhead, and I'm stoked already!

You will probably want to reread Atlas and The Fountainhead many times in the future. Each time you will get more out of it. The third major novel by Ayn Rand is We the Living, her first novel, about life (including the usual heroes!) in the Soviet Union, which you will also get a lot out of. Other works of fiction are Anthem, a short "novelette", and several short stories and plays from her early career which you will want to explore and enjoy.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Thanks for the information. I have a copy of "We the Living" ready on the bookshelf for when I finish The Fountainhead. And, I have an audio version of Anthem on my Palm.

I want to find all of these in the form of Audiobook. My husband detests reading, but he listens to audiobooks that I buy him while he drives around for work. I think he would get so much enjoyment out of these stories. He is a lot like Roark, from what I've seen of him so far, esp. in his conversations with Peter and with the Dean.

[Paul's Here 0]

So to deepen my understanding of objectivist ethics:

Was she justified in shooting him because he was the greatest mind? Or because she loved him? Or just because he was an innocent victim of torture?

I ask this because there are other instances of people being held against their will or being tortured in the book. I could see Galt being justified in killing his assailants, but to say that someone is justified in killing for the sake of another person seems different. It's not that I think she wasn't justified, but I'm just trying to understand what makes her justified by the ethic of the novel.

----------

What do you see as the ethic of the novel? The theme of the novel is the role of man's mind in his existence, and to demonstrate how ethics can be based upon reason and rational self-interest. What more stark way to demonstrate this that by giving a man a choice in which his life and death stares him in the face? The guard was a man who thought he could exist without the need to make a choice. He found out he couldn't.

[ewv 0]

Thanks for the information. I have a copy of "We the Living" ready on the bookshelf for when I finish The Fountainhead. And, I have an audio version of Anthem on my Palm.

I want to find all of these in the form of Audiobook. My husband detests reading, but he listens to audiobooks that I buy him while he drives around for work. I think he would get so much enjoyment out of these stories. He is a lot like Roark, from what I've seen of him so far, esp. in his conversations with Peter and with the Dean.

Listening to recordings in the car is a good idea, especially on long trips. If he listens while driving around for work he might become so engrossed that the work destination somehow gets overlooked. Atlas and The Fountainhead are both on audio books, but are expensive. Watch out for the distinction between the abridged and full version. The Fountainhead was also made into a movie with Gary Cooper which is available on DVD.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

So to deepen my understanding of objectivist ethics:

Was she justified in shooting him because he was the greatest mind? Or because she loved him? Or just because he was an innocent victim of torture?

I ask this because there are other instances of people being held against their will or being tortured in the book. I could see Galt being justified in killing his assailants, but to say that someone is justified in killing for the sake of another person seems different. It's not that I think she wasn't justified, but I'm just trying to understand what makes her justified by the ethic of the novel.

----------

What do you see as the ethic of the novel? The theme of the novel is the role of man's mind in his existence, and to demonstrate how ethics can be based upon reason and rational self-interest. What more stark way to demonstrate this that by giving a man a choice in which his life and death stares him in the face? The guard was a man who thought he could exist without the need to make a choice. He found out he couldn't.

I guess I could understand this if Dagny had given him the truth. What makes this seem odd to me is that she started out by lying and saying that she was there by the order of Mr. Thompson. So she wasn't giving him a fair choice, was she? She was intentionally trying to confuse him and take advantage of his limitations. She didn't say, " I represent a faction of rational individuals who have the ability to rescue the country from inevitable ruin and the man behind that door is being held prisoner against his will. Now choose sides." She lied to him and confused him and then shot him. It said that the guards were chosen on the basis of their capacity for obedience. Now seeing the guard as the instrument of the state, it does make sense, but seeing him as an individual, and possible having a family or people who love him, it seemed an undignified way to die. I guess I felt compassion for the "normal" people in the novel, as I imagine some of them as victims of circumstances and of their own mental limitations. Some of them didn't know any better because they hadn't been shown the truth about their society. Is that too much like Plato's cave? Is everyone in a totalitarian society responsible for the actions of their government, if they don't dissent? Are they ever allowed to say, "But I didn't realize."?

I can see where it was ethical to shoot him, but I think she should have told him the truth, to be fair. Oh, I don't know, it's the first I've read of Ayn Rand, so I'm sure I have a lot to learn.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Atlas is the first novel I have ever read where every action of every character made sense to me, given their traits and motivations. Until this moment. Dagny had stayed in the world, for her fathers dignity and for the railroad, and I guess a little for Hank. It's just hard for me to understand what happened in her mind that changed her so drastically. What did she understand at that moment that she had not before? Was it that they would use such force to achieve their goals?

Wasn't the guard, in being the best guard he could be, doing what would be expected in an irrational society?

I do see that she gave him the choice and that his will to live wasn't great enough to save himself, but could he have been thinking he would die either way? That his superiors would punish him for disobeying? And so he was reverting back to his principle of obedience?

[RayK 0]

TTM, I think you might be taking things out of context in you examples from above. Does a dissenter get a job at a top-secret project that is limited to need-to-know personnel? Also, how would a person in a totalitarian society, where a person's life is usually controlled from sun up to sun up, not know that their government was corrupt without total evation on that person's part? I would guess that in reality a real dissenter would not be working as a guard and instead would be attempting to get out of the totalitarian state.

It is good that you are thinking these things out and I offer that you keep at it no matter how uncomfortable it becomes. I would also offer that you keep attempting to learn more and integrate that new knowledge which can allow you to come to conclusions, ethical or not, without contradictions.

[ewv 0]

So to deepen my understanding of objectivist ethics:

Was she justified in shooting him because he was the greatest mind? Or because she loved him? Or just because he was an innocent victim of torture?

I ask this because there are other instances of people being held against their will or being tortured in the book. I could see Galt being justified in killing his assailants, but to say that someone is justified in killing for the sake of another person seems different. It's not that I think she wasn't justified, but I'm just trying to understand what makes her justified by the ethic of the novel.

----------

What do you see as the ethic of the novel? The theme of the novel is the role of man's mind in his existence, and to demonstrate how ethics can be based upon reason and rational self-interest. What more stark way to demonstrate this that by giving a man a choice in which his life and death stares him in the face? The guard was a man who thought he could exist without the need to make a choice. He found out he couldn't.

I guess I could understand this if Dagny had given him the truth. What makes this seem odd to me is that she started out by lying and saying that she was there by the order of Mr. Thompson. So she wasn't giving him a fair choice, was she? She was intentionally trying to confuse him and take advantage of his limitations. She didn't say, " I represent a faction of rational individuals who have the ability to rescue the country from inevitable ruin and the man behind that door is being held prisoner against his will. Now choose sides." She lied to him and confused him and then shot him. It said that the guards were chosen on the basis of their capacity for obedience. Now seeing the guard as the instrument of the state, it does make sense, but seeing him as an individual, and possible having a family or people who love him, it seemed an undignified way to die. I guess I felt compassion for the "normal" people in the novel, as I imagine some of them as victims of circumstances and of their own mental limitations. Some of them didn't know any better because they hadn't been shown the truth about their society. Is that too much like Plato's cave? Is everyone in a totalitarian society responsible for the actions of their government, if they don't dissent? Are they ever allowed to say, "But I didn't realize."?

I can see where it was ethical to shoot him, but I think she should have told him the truth, to be fair. Oh, I don't know, it's the first I've read of Ayn Rand, so I'm sure I have a lot to learn.

If an armed thug broke into your home and demanded to know where you were hiding your children would you tell him the truth and try to rationally talk him out of it because he might have a family, or would you say anything you could to trick him and knock him off to save your children? There is no concept of "fairness" that requires you do anything but what you can to protect your values from such a physical assault.

But Dagny did tell the guard he had a choice. She could have shot him without saying anything. The guard didn't want to have to make a decision, which explicit refusal to think and decide did not exempt him from justice. That was one of the major points of the scene. Further, as the guard and his actions were described, there was nothing dignified about him at all and no right for him to have an "undignified death". He didn't rise even to the level of saying "but I didn't realize", but if he had it would not justify sacrificing Galt to his actual actions.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

TTM, I think you might be taking things out of context in you examples from above. Does a dissenter get a job at a top-secret project that is limited to need-to-know personnel? Also, how would a person in a totalitarian society, where a person's life is usually controlled from sun up to sun up, not know that their government was corrupt without total evation on that person's part? I would guess that in reality a real dissenter would not be working as a guard and instead would be attempting to get out of the totalitarian state.

It is good that you are thinking these things out and I offer that you keep at it no matter how uncomfortable it becomes. I would also offer that you keep attempting to learn more and integrate that new knowledge which can allow you to come to conclusions, ethical or not, without contradictions.

I didn't mean to say that he was a dissenter. I was asking if all nondissenters are responsible? In other words, does anyone get a pass for "going along to get along" for any reason? What if they are to dumb to know better or do not have the ability to fly to Colorado and live off the land? In that case, doesn't it make sense, if you can't escape the society, to try and do as best as one can in it? And if that's so, does one deserve to die for doing what is best in irrational circumstances?

I wonder if Ayn Rand just went too fast here, and didn't flesh out enough about the guard to make him unsympathetic. She could have put in a section describing how he got to his position or something, or showing where he had a chance at some point in his life to take another path but chose that one and then it would seem like he deserved his fate.

I definitely have a lot to learn, and should probably read more into the philosophy for more detailed answers. Does anyone know of a place where Ayn Rand actually addresses this scene and gives any explanation?

[ewv 0]

Atlas is the first novel I have ever read where every action of every character made sense to me, given their traits and motivations. Until this moment. Dagny had stayed in the world, for her fathers dignity and for the railroad, and I guess a little for Hank. It's just hard for me to understand what happened in her mind that changed her so drastically. What did she understand at that moment that she had not before? Was it that they would use such force to achieve their goals?

She understood the seriousness of the threat to Galt, but that didn't take any change in her thinking from earlier in the novel.

By that point in the novel she had understood why the strikers were justified and she had changed her thinking in that sense, but that wasn't required to kill the guard. Wanting to stay in the world to keep working wasn't the same thing as the matter of defending a high personal value from direct and immediate destruction.

Wasn't the guard, in being the best guard he could be, doing what would be expected in an irrational society?

Wasn't Hitler, in being the best irrational astrologist and power seeking thug and murderer he could be, doing what would be expected in an irrational society? (See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.) Weren't Lenin and Stalin being the best they could be by the standards of an irrational society of communism? (See We the Living.) That did not justify it or exempt them from being stopped in any way possible from destroying people.

I do see that she gave him the choice and that his will to live wasn't great enough to save himself, but could he have been thinking he would die either way? That his superiors would punish him for disobeying? And so he was reverting back to his principle of obedience?

As described in the novel he didn't want to have to think or decide at all. The evasion of thought under the "principle of obedience" or anything else does not exempt one from the requirement to think in order to live. In particular it did not exempt him from the consequences meted out from those who did want to live.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

I suppose when I consider the fact that the guard could have killed her for trying to enter if she had not killed him it does smooth things out a bit. I forget that Dagny was also concerned with protecting her own life and saving Galt's, not with risking her life to save everyone else, including the guard.

And that begs another question, in my mind, about warfare: What is the level of responsibility of troops on the ground in Iraq, for example, to distinguish enemy combatants from innocent civilians? If their own lives are at risk, are they justified in shooting first and asking questions later or do they owe due diligence to the subject to say who they are and where they stand? Is this question subject to debate depending on the circumstances of the battle or the war itself?