Screeeeeech! What? I don't get this!

[ewv 0]

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?

Not if they are threatening you by doing it. In an irrational society you have to do things you don't approve of, but you don't have to adopt and sanction the "go along to get along" mentality. See the character Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead.

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?

One of the points of the novel was to show how people who are not evil but otherwise unexceptional depend for their lives on those who do the creative thinking (as in the role of Eddie Willers). The novel illustrated that by showing what happens when the creators go on strike against their own enslavement. The role of the mind and those who use it to do the thinking is simply a fact of life in human existence. History is littered with the bodies of 'normal' people who had no choice but to live under tyrants because those were the circumstances under which they were born and had to live.

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.

That progression was shown for several characters (like James Taggert). By the time she got to the guard scene all that was necessary was to portray the guard as one more person who didn't want to think.

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?

I think it has been discussed before but don't remember if Ayn Rand did. You will find comments she made on various scenes and lines in Atlas scattered throughout different essays.

A lot of these issues will become clearer in more depth to you as you read more and think about it in connection with what else you have read in Atlas and elsewhere.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

One of the points of the novel was to show how people who are not evil but otherwise unexceptional depend for their lives on those who do the creative thinking (as in the role of Eddie Willers). The novel illustrated that by showing what happens when the creators go on strike against their own enslavement. The role of the mind and those who use it to do the thinking is simply a fact of life in human existence. History is littered with the bodies of 'normal' people who had no choice but to live under tyrants because those were the circumstances under which they were born and had to live

It makes sense, now that you mention Eddie Willers. He's sort of the counterpart, or antithesis to the guard, since he helps Dagny along the way. Incidently, how is he meant to feel about his position in life? How is that different from the way the guard feels about his so called "superiors"?

I suppose Eddie Willers is supposed to feel appreciative of the great thinkers and be willing to help in whatever capacity he can? What would cause him to feel shame or embarassment at his lack of superior ability? Does this come from hatred of the self or of the great? Or from somewhere else entirely? I'm picturing if Eddie were to think he should have amounted to more than what he did, that he should have been like Galt. What would that sentiment be?

That progression was shown for several characters (like James Taggert). By the time she got to the guard scene all that was necessary was to portray the guard as one more person who didn't want to think.

This also makes a lot of sense, thanks.

[RayK 0]

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?

This question has also been discussed in many threads on THE FORUM. But, the responsiblity of so called innocent civilians lies in the hands of the immoral government that attacked the other country that is now defending itself. You might also ask yourself who is it that is supporting the opposing troops if not the so called "innocnet civilians?"

I would also add that war is not crime fighting, warriors are not policemen. Diplomacy is carried out between countries in a peaceful manner even when they have disagreements. But, once one country commits an act of war, diplomacy leaves the stage until the war/warriors return peace.

If an enemy soldier uses an "innocent civilian" as a bullet protector than he is the one morally responsible for the civilians possible death. An example might help to concretize this for you. If a group of soldiers are out on an urban patrol and come across hostiles that grab "innocent civilians" in the street and use them as shields while attempting to shot the group of soldiers from behind these "innocent civilians." The soldiers would be morally correct to shoot through the "innocent civilians" to kill the hostiles in the defense of thier own lives and the protection of American citizens.

[bborg 0]

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?

First of all, it would be immoral to expect a soldier not to retaliate or defend himself if his life was being threatened. Joining the military does not make a soldier a sacrificial lamb, or deprive him of the natural rights he has committed himself to defend.

Secondly, a war zone is not a primary, but is a consequence of a government's actions. The primary question is not how the soldiers should conduct themselves given that a war is taking place, but why they have been deployed. Is the war against an enemy who has used or threatened to use force against us? If so, then our soldiers must kill and destroy whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy and secure our freedom, even if it means innocent lives are lost in the process. Also, in total war soldiers are not simply left in a war zone to patrol and told to pick off whoever they believe is an enemy, they are given targets to destroy based on their government's intelligence of enemy strengths, with the ultimate goal of incapacitating and forcing the surrender of that enemy power. In a real war, soldiers are directed by generals to accomplish specific objectives. They are not "peacekeepers" (except in the sense that victory leads to peace), they are not social workers, construction workers or policemen. A soldier is an instrument of death used by a government to retaliate against a threat to its citizens. The duty of the soldier is to kill and keep killing until his home is safe again. Innocent people in enemy territory should know this and, if possible, get the hell out as quickly as possible for their own safety. If they can't, this does not in any way negate our right to defend ourselves. And if they are truly innocent, they will be cheering the defeat of their evil government that has initiated aggression against us.

To the extent that these conditions are not present, that soldiers are not directed to defeat the enemy, that they are used in nonmilitary roles or even told to value the lives of "civilians" above their own, the war will be prolonged and more lives lost than necessary (including innocents in enemy territory). The tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan is that not only are we not defending American interests fighting in those countries, by we aren't even accomplishing the alleged goal of peace and security there. A total war to defeat the enemy actually is best for both the innocent lives on both sides.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

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

...

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

Leaving aside the question of the morality of the guard (which I think is as guilty as the devil), even if he was forced by someone to forcefully prevent entrance to the building, they would still be justified in shooting him. Think about it like this: Why is it fair that he shoots them to save his life and job, but it is not fair for Dagny to shoot him to save her life and loved one? Obviously, innocent or not, if she did not neutralize him in some way, he would do his job which is to harm her (or even kill her) if she enters the building.

To put the situation in a simpler way: suppose man A forces man B to shoot you. Are you morally justified in shooting man B in self defense (even though he is moral, even if he does shoot you, if that's the only option he's given to save his own life)? If you say, well, this guy ("man B") is not immoral, therefore I am not justified shooting him, how come he is moral in shooting you? There is a contradiction, you will be using more strict standards against yourself then you would use for this guy ("man B").

So the only option here, is that your primary moral goal is self defense against force (of yourself and of your values).

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

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

...

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

Leaving aside the question of the morality of the guard (which I think is as guilty as the devil), even if he was forced by someone to forcefully prevent entrance to the building, they would still be justified in shooting him. Think about it like this: Why is it fair that he shoots them to save his life and job, but it is not fair for Dagny to shoot him to save her life and loved one? Obviously, innocent or not, if she did not neutralize him in some way, he would do his job which is to harm her (or even kill her) if she enters the building.

To put the situation in a simpler way: suppose man A forces man B to shoot you. Are you morally justified in shooting man B in self defense (even though he is moral, even if he does shoot you, if that's the only option he's given to save his own life)? If you say, well, this guy ("man B") is not immoral, therefore I am not justified shooting him, how come he is moral in shooting you? There is a contradiction, you will be using more strict standards against yourself then you would use for this guy ("man B").

So the only option here, is that your primary moral goal is self defense against force (of yourself and of your values).

Yes, I see it. Thanks for this explanation. It makes sense that the guard was using force simply by being there with a threatening weapon.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Yes, I see it. Thanks for this explanation. It makes sense that the guard was using force simply by being there with a threatening weapon.

Not that I think that a policeman or a guard in the mall is initiating the use of force against me (next time I'll see a cop I'll be sure to punch him in the face ). But in this case, they were torturing an innocent man inside, and that guard was using force to assist them in that (whether or not he knew). And I think that is what makes it initiation of force on his part (even if he is innocent in assisting such an evil operation). This is what makes him "man B" from my hypothetical, not just the fact that he is holding a weapon to protect the entrance to some building.

I think Dagny takes it into account (that he could be innocent) when she gives him the chance to move out of her way.

So just wanted to clarify this...

[ewv 0]

One of the points of the novel was to show how people who are not evil but otherwise unexceptional depend for their lives on those who do the creative thinking (as in the role of Eddie Willers). The novel illustrated that by showing what happens when the creators go on strike against their own enslavement. The role of the mind and those who use it to do the thinking is simply a fact of life in human existence. History is littered with the bodies of 'normal' people who had no choice but to live under tyrants because those were the circumstances under which they were born and had to live

It makes sense, now that you mention Eddie Willers. He's sort of the counterpart, or antithesis to the guard, since he helps Dagny along the way. Incidently, how is he meant to feel about his position in life? How is that different from the way the guard feels about his so called "superiors"? I suppose Eddie Willers is supposed to feel appreciative of the great thinkers and be willing to help in whatever capacity he can? What would cause him to feel shame or embarassment at his lack of superior ability? Does this come from hatred of the self or of the great? Or from somewhere else entirely? I'm picturing if Eddie were to think he should have amounted to more than what he did, that he should have been like Galt. What would that sentiment be?

Eddie Willers's position in life is very successful. He has a responsible job at which he is very competent even though it is not running the whole railroad. Within his realm he is fully capable of making independent decisions required to do his work. He accepts who he is as routine fact and lives accordingly. He is proud of what he does and who he is and would find the notion that he should feel shame or embarrassment that he can't do more than he does to be incomprehensible. He recognizes the abilities of his 'superiors' like Dagny and Rearden and respects them for what they do, what they have earned and who they are. He feels no resentment towards them and would find such an attitude to be incomprehensible. He realizes he is morally part of their world. He is living out the pact he and Dagny made when they were children:

He [Eddie] said, "The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us?"

"I don't know."

"We'll have to find out." She did not answer; she was looking away, up the railroad track.

Eddie Willers smiled. He had said, "Whatever is right," twenty-two years ago. He had kept that statement unchallenged ever since; the other questions had faded in his mind; he had been too busy to ask them. But he still thought it self-evident that one had to do what was right; he had never learned how people could want to do otherwise; he had learned only that they did. It still seemed simple and incomprehensible to him: simple that things should be right, and incomprehensible that they weren't. He knew that they weren't.

He feels very differently about his "superiors" like James Taggert, who he knows is morally rotten and incompetent despite his position on the railroad.

He does all this through his own independent judgment and honesty.

The guard has no independent thoughts, no sense of self, and nothing to be proud of. He does what he is told unthinkingly because that is what he is told to do by those whom he is told are "important". When there is a conflict he is paralyzed and helpless.

Eddie Willers acts to the best of his ability in reality; the guard is completely run by other people, which puts him a mental relation with them of complete subservience.

[Rose Lake 0]

I picked out these questions, because they are questions of principle, and as such are important.

[...] I was asking if all nondissenters are responsible?

In the context of Atlas Shrugged, an emergent dictatorship, yes, they are. Ayn Rand realized that men are guilty (whether they are great men [like Hank Rearden] or not [like the guard]) whenever they consent to act as slaves. Rearden acted as a slave because of ignorance and error. He accepted his own virtues as guilt, projected elements of his own virtuous mind-set onto the evil individuals in his own family, and was therefore grossly mistaken about their motives. These mistakes were costly, but he paid dearly for them -- and once he figured out his errors, he was free.

But the guard consented to act as a slave because he chose not to think, which is a moral crime. And Atlas Shrugged is a moral novel, one in which the mistakes of great men are costly, and in which the innocence of lesser men does not necessarily spare them (Cheryl Taggart and Eddie Willers). In that context, it is not an injustice that a lesser man guilty of a moral crime pays for it.

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.

In the context of Atlas Shrugged -- 'going along to get along,' necessarily includes the refusal to identify evil, which is absolutely immoral.

The man who did not have the confidence or will to be a striker, yet did his best in irrational circumstances was Eddie Willers. Erich (ewv) gave a good summary of the contrast between Eddie Willers and the guard. I don't think you have to know much about the details of the guard's life. I believe that someone mentioned that the employees, like him, were chosen because they possessed the quality of unquestioning [unthinking] obedience. Since man's life depends on thinking, according to the Objectivist ethics, the failure to think is a moral crime, for which there is a penalty.

From the Objectivist Ethics:

Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness; destruction.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Some recent posts have been split off to a new topic titled "The U.S. and Pakistan" (link).