Morality and Reality

Justifying theft, slavery and even murder is relatively easy in the world of Atlas Shrugged. Legislators and bureaucrats alike, act on the belief that satisfying the needs of the public, as a whole, is paramount compared to respecting the rights of the individual. As such, new laws and legislation (Directive 10-289, creation of the Unification Board, et cetera) allow for the enslavement of the producers and the pillaging of their product. However, their pretentious position requires that their victims play the part and continue supplying material to be confiscated. One man, John Galt finds the simple, morally just solution, and shields his talent from those who would abuse it. As the government noose tightens, more enlightened industrialists find motivation to join him.

The socialistic values that permeate this society seem to be spawn from good intentions if you were to consider and accept the Judaist/Christian ethics they are based upon. The most applicable: public welfare is of prime importance and giving of oneself is virtuous. Material possessions are spiritually meaningless, and no one has the right to be the sole proprietor of information. Ayn Rand displays this outlook taken to an extreme when Hank Rearden and other industrialists are compelled to turn over patents, and products to quell those deemed “needy.” Society overlooks the rights violated and damage inflicted upon those who are coerced into doing the giving, somehow neglecting that they too are part of the multitude. Nevertheless, when Hank Rearden gives his courtroom appearance, they glimpse for a moment the reality they’ve misconstrued and are nonplussed by it.

The regulations and directives issued in Atlas Shrugged (and to some degree in America today) tend towards creating a socialistic society. The belief is equal compensation and equal treatment to persons of every station and affiliation. Even if it were to be practical, it’s still far from morally sound. The problem lies with lumping the populace under the same pretense, that being: we are all equal. Is it just to reward the person who puts forth the effort, talent, and responsibility to become a head of industry equitable to the societal parasite who is more a detriment to the public welfare than benefit? Is it just for a man who spent 10 years of study to become neurosurgeon to earn no more than the person who fails to complete high school? Not only is this far from just, but also it discourages productivity as a whole; what incentive is there for a man to change the world when he will only be rewarded equal to those changing light bulbs? How simple is it to discover a person capable of washing dishes, as compared to finding a tactful diplomat? Even if you were to accept Marxist ethics, contradictions are clearly evident; by distributing the same worth to aforementioned parasites, the “public good” can actually be hampered by them rather than ameliorated. Another quandary lies between the lines of equal compensation and need. The cost of living in the Siberian tundra with eight children would most likely warrant more need, but to address it you would disrupt the policy of equal compensation; either way someone remains unsatisfied.

Within each part of these beliefs there is involved the requisitioning of material wealth from its producer, and subsequent redistribution to those who have not produced, or produced less. Therein arises a major dilemma: to requisition and redistribute, there must be someone from whom to loot. There must be an industrialist who remains willing to create valuable items even as they are taken from him. In Ayn Rand’s work, the character John Galt was able to see this and as he did so, he made the decision not to remain the willing victim. He chose to let the looters devise their own means, and arrive at the destination those means dictated. This illustrates one of Ayn Rand’s main philosophical points very well. “Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” This directly counters the socialist theory, which showcases interdependency, and the perpetuation of complete control and loss of personal freedom.

Material wealth itself is not the only target of this sacrificial society; any product of the individual mind can be seized. Patents on inventions, copyrights, movies, theatrical productions, and musical productions, are all targets of a society that places the importance of the masses above those of the individual. The character Hank Rearden is a prime example of this; the patience and effort of ten years finally pays off as he invents Rearden Metal, an alloy the usefulness of which far surpasses anything in existence. As its usefulness is realized and utilized, Rearden becomes even more successful, and draws the attention of the Unification Board. Their moral standpoint allows them to grant his patents and formulas to whomever they deem deserving based on their destitution, their justification: merely mentioning the public welfare. Eventually, coming to understand the full extent and motivation of those arrayed against him, he too joins John Galt in seclusion and freedom.

While it might seem that the surface values and morals of those who promote socialism over capitalism are altruistic, they can be scrutinized to provide us with insight into their many flaws and contradictions. Rand’s excellent grasp of these flaws allows her to dramatize and present them in a manner which anyone can appreciate. Another factor against the socialist philosophy consists of the prey needed to sustain an economic system that plunders the products of the able to reconcile the needs of the incapable or unwilling. Patents and copyrights are also left to the mercy of those few who decree whose need is greatest, with no regard to the origins of either. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged prominently displays the faults of a society with little economic freedom, while more than adequately showing the virtues of a capitalistic economic system.