{"id":94,"date":"2016-09-12T10:11:44","date_gmt":"2016-09-12T15:11:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gaillardian.com\/?p=94"},"modified":"2022-08-10T12:36:15","modified_gmt":"2022-08-10T17:36:15","slug":"zosima-meet-galt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gaillardian.com\/index.php\/2016\/09\/12\/zosima-meet-galt\/","title":{"rendered":"ZOSIMA MEET GALT (2\/4)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cWho is John Galt?\u201d–this is the opening line and indeed the most prevalent question in the entirety of Ayn Rand\u2019s novel, <\/span>Atlas Shrugged <\/span><\/i>(11). It is repeated from one side of the country to the other and by many different people. It is an expression of hopelessness in a world filled with despair. The dystopian world of <\/span>Atlas Shrugged<\/span><\/i> is the creation of altruists, looters, and moochers. Galt might believe \u201ccreated\u201d to be a strong word, since, in his view, it is actually their <\/span>lack<\/span><\/i> of creating that brought about this dystopian state. He particularly blames those in politics, who make deals to take assets from the producers by force; and distribute them to their friends and those who don\u2019t produce.<\/span><\/p>\n

To get some idea of the conflict that exists between Galt and the corrupt American government, think of the Sheriff of Nottingham in the tale (or \u201cmyth\u201d) of Robin Hood. You have the Sheriff over-taxing the people into extreme poverty, and over and over again we see Robin Hood taking the stolen property from the Sheriff and giving it back to the impoverished community (Taylor, 290). I think Galt would have approved of this early version of Robin Hood, prior to the idea that he was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. In light of this, you might even say that Galt is the Robin Hood of America, since throughout the book, he and his followers do just that. As you can see, the plot of this story is a good one, but it rests on a very extreme and controversial philosophy–Objectivism. <\/span><\/p>\n

To start, using an assortment of strategically chosen quotes from Galt\u2019s long speech at the end of <\/span>Atlas Shrugged<\/span><\/i>, I will attempt a summary of his ethic (915).<\/span><\/p>\n

Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. (926)<\/span><\/p>\n

To remain alive, he must think. (926)<\/span><\/p>\n

But to think is an act of choice. (926)<\/span><\/p>\n

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. (926)<\/span><\/p>\n

Man’s life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man\u2014for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life. (928)<\/span><\/p>\n

Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. (928)<\/span><\/p>\n

Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. (928)<\/span><\/p>\n

Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. (935)<\/span><\/p>\n

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? (936)<\/span><\/p>\n

I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. (936)<\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>Socratic Puzzles, <\/span><\/i>the Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick delivers a detailed critique of Objectivism in the chapter entitled <\/span>On the Randian Argument. <\/span><\/i>This chapter has the above argument broken into 4 main parts (249):<\/span><\/p>\n

(I)<\/span> To the conclusion that only living beings have values with a point.<\/span><\/p>\n

(II)<\/span> From I, to the conclusion that life itself is a value to a living being which <\/span><\/p>\n

has it.<\/span><\/p>\n

(III)<\/span> From II, to the conclusion that life, as a rational person, is a value to the <\/span><\/p>\n

person whose life it is.<\/span><\/p>\n

(IV)<\/span> From III, to some principle about interpersonal behavior and rights and <\/span><\/p>\n

purposes. (250)<\/span><\/p>\n

While reflecting on these parts, it is also worth noting that Nozick himself had difficulty discerning the details of the Objectivist ethic. He said it this way, \u201cUnfortunately, it is not clear (to me) exactly what the argument is\u201d (249). <\/span><\/p>\n

Here, it becomes clear that IV is the most interesting part to Galt\u2019s argument, at least with respect to Father Zosima\u2019s ethical conclusions, which we will consider later in this post. It is, after all, the conclusion of how we as individuals should live with respect to ourselves and interact with others. Before we go any further, I would like to point out that parts (I-III) are being assumed as true for the sake of argument alone. Neither Nozick nor myself are able to find good solid objective evidence for either (I), (II), or (III) in any of the consulted works by Rand (252). Hence, we must give Rand, and thus Galt, the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps she had underlying beliefs that didn\u2019t make it into her work.[1]<\/sup><\/a> For speculation about what these underlying beliefs might be see Nozick, Socratic Puzzles, 1997.<\/span><\/span>