Hank Rearden, Francisco D'anconia, or John Galt? Did Dagny Choose Correctly?
Posted by PSULillis 11 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
Rand did an exquisit job of attaching the readers to each one of these characters. Francisco was her childhood crush that lasted into her late teens/early twenties. Hank Rearden was a man's man and a captain of industry. They worked hand-in-hand navigating the red tape, pitfalls, irrational regulations, and rediculous demands set forth by the government (which were all for "the good of the people" mind you. Finally, John Galt was the recruiter & leader of the most driven individuals in the country. He founded The Gultch and brought the country's best & brightest to it. I cna't help but think Dagny had a place in her heart for each of those three, but she settled on Galt. Do you think she made the right choice? Who would you have chosen?
I didn't feel so much like Francisco was "fighting". I guess it kind of is what he was doing, but for some reason, that word doesn't quite work for me. Maybe there's a better word, but I don't know what. Anyway, yes, Galt was very honorable. Even Rearden and Francisco understood why Dagny chose him! They all looked up to him.
I think she made the right choice in the end. I don't think she "settled" for Galt. (I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.) I don't know how she could go wrong. She was choosing from the top three! Personally, I really liked Rearden. I had a tough time getting over that, but she made the right choice for her.
Now, if I could just find out where Rearden is hiding. Lol.
You may have chosen Dagny, but, my friend, don't be so sure that she would have chosen you, or even stayed committed to you.
The problem is that 'morals' are not definitive. Morals to one group of people can be different to another group. Morals are personal beliefs, thus there can be no such thing as morally 'deserving' since there is no set standard for morals. Morally compatible is desirable: meaning they agree on their code of morals. I, personally, don't believe psychology has anything to do with a relationship. It is about sharing the same values and beliefs, even if they aren't the same as the majority. What matters is that they believe similarly or are willing to agree to disagree.
"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
According this the statement Ayn Rand made morality is abstract and we must each define our own morality to make it concrete. Galt was speaking of his chosen moral values or ethics when he said, "My morality..." Morality is not objective but subject to each person's choices according to what they value