Thursday, March 20, 2008

Lost in Galt's Gulch


With the introduction of the Freighter's captain - Captain Gault - fans of L O S T have been digging around for literary references to the name. This Captain Gault has already been identified, and seems most immediately applicable to the overarching mythology of our favorite show.

But as other bloggers have pointed out, there is also a John Galt of a different type (and different spelling, of course): the John Galt of Ayn Rand's famous novel, Atlas Shrugged.

In this post I'd like to draw attention to the ethics of isolated communities; in particular, isolated communities like Ben's island and Galt's Gulch, where the "good guys" hole up and separate themselves from the rest of the world. But before I do that, I just want to draw some parallels between Ben's island and Galt's Gulch.

Photobucket

Atlas Shrugged is a long novel that encapsulates Ayn Rands main philosophy, Objectivism, and John Galt especially embodies that philosophy. In short, Rand's (and Galt's) philosophy is:

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.

With this philosophy in mind, Rand's John Galt recruits the world's most successful business men - the "Captains of Industry" - to his cause, and seemingly spirits them away to Galt's Gulch: a secret enclave located in a valley in the mountains of Colorado, and is hidden from the rest of the world. Galt is able to recruit the best of the best - the real movers and shakers of the world - because in the Universe of the novel, the world is sinking into an orgy of collectivism and the inevitably increasing nationalization of industry by the governments of the world.

Aside from sharing a geographical similarity to New Otherton

Photobucket

as team Darlton like to call it - both Ben's island and Galt's Gulch are invisible to the rest of the world. Ben's island seems to get its invisible properties from electromagnetism; whereas Galt's Gulch has a man-made (by Galt) high-tech invisibility screen, which is designed to prevent the valley from being found.

Both places elicit an atmosphere of "us versus them." And both leaders consider their people the "good guys."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Ben is telling the truth when he says that the Others are the good guys. And let's assume that John Galt's philosophy is justified. So is it ethical to take the best, the most creative people from the world and keep them to yourself? Is it ethical to take their benefits to society away?

Do they have an inalienable right to rescind their gifts and use them in their own isolated community? Or are they obligated by some implied social contract to use their gifts and talents for the benefit of society?

Does a human being exist for her own sake, or does she exist for the sake of others? Or does she somehow balance existing for both herself and others?






2 comments:

Capcom said...

Nice thoughts and post! I really need to read that book someday soon!

While I agree with Rand's ideas against collectivism (and her ideas of how the tribal pool, where everyone's benefits are put into one pot for the good of all, just does not work), I have a hard time buying her idea of living in absolute selfishness. I guess I could say I agree with her about 90%.

The questions that you ask are great. Maybe I can see the benefits in taking both sides. :-) For instance, DHARMA's original purpose of isolation on the island (via TLE) was to do research for the eventual good of the world. Hanso gathered the elite and put them to work to help mankind. Is that what was being done in Galt's Gulch? Or were they separated forever from the world?

I firmly believe in individualism (and in the thought that the best place to find a helping hand is at the end of your own arm), but I also believe that each individual should find some area where there are people less blessed, who could use a helping hand, not necessarily a hand-out. Who in the world never got a break where someone more fortunate or well trained than them, gave them a piece of good advice at the very least, or offered a leg-up to a place of higher knowledge or purpose? I believe that helping people like that is what helps the whole world improve, and that helping someone else does not mean depriving yourself. But, a little self-sacrifice is what takes life to a higher level...."the greatest gift is to give one's life for a friend", as it were. I don't think that we can each live in a vacuum without a negative effect resulting overall.

Good post. :-)

Courtney said...

While I enjoyed your post, I wonder if you read Rand's novel or just read about it on Wikipedia. Though the book is long, it's a wonderful read both for its philosophical contributions, as well as its entertaining plot.

I think you may have missed Rand's point. Galt did not take the world's movers and shakers to be selfish. The selfish government and by extension the public, expected businesses and CEOs to give their money and services to people (the moochers and the looters) simply because businesses had the money and the government didn't. Government moved in with regulations, telling business owners like Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart how to run their businesses, that they shouldn't work for profit but for the good of others. The public lapped up this socialist mentality. The public had a strong sense of entitlement and didn't want to work for themselves, but wanted to take from the "big evil" businesses that were making so much money.

Galt did not want to work for people who would not work for themselves. Why should anyone work and give their earned money to those who would not work? CEOs saw his logic and voluntarily went to Galt's Gulch so that they could practice their beliefs of individual prosperity. And the Gulch flourished because everyone wanted to better their own lives, and everyone did.