Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
analysis of anthem by ayn rand
analysis of anthem by ayn rand
analysis of anthem by ayn rand
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: analysis of anthem by ayn rand
Objectivism is defined as “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively (based on facts rather than feelings or opinions) real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.” (Webster). Demonstrated by Ayn Rand in the book, The Fountainhead, objectivism seems to most, to be morally wrong, and socially impractical, despite seeming to be a stress-free way of life. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark does not see relationships as necessary, but as a means to an end. For America to be purely objectivist would tear the country apart, in the sense that “normal social relationships” would no longer exist, but hatred and racism would become obsolete. A democratic government would be unable to succeed because no one would look at issues from the perspective of the “common good”, but from the perspective of what benefits the individual. Generally, objectivism contradicts moral and social standards set by time, breaks down relationships, despite having positive effects, and is vividly illustrated by Ayn Rand in her book.
By definition, moral is what is “considered right and good by most people: agreeing with a standard of right behavior” (Webster). Considering that definition, objectivism falls short in many ways. “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.” (Rand ). An “objectivist” would exist for the sole purpose of serving himself, with no regard for the sake of others. “The term "moral rights" is a translation of the French term "droit moral," and refers not to "morals" as advocated by t...
... middle of paper ...
...ould quickly go under due to the fact that major corporations would only do business among one another, because the sums of money to be made would be much more substantial than anything most small businesses could provide. “The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.” (Rand). However, the major impact would be on the consumer, since big businesses would be the only place to buy from, monopolies would form on goods, and without any competition prices would fluctuate at the leisure of the businessmen, who would be objectivist, and therefore not care about the strain their high prices put on consumers. In theory, objectivism creates a vicious cycle, that is virtually inescapable.
In the novel, Anthem, written by Ayn Rand takes place when mankind has entered another dark age. A man named Equality 7-2521 lives in a society where he struggles to live equal within the brotherhood. In the world he lives in people are told they exist only for the sake of serving society, and have no other purpose. Therefore, each individual is assigned a vocation as a permanent life career which determines who they socialize and live with. However, Equality being very different from his brothers, believes in individualism and rejects the collectivism society around him. The concept of individualism vs collectivism is portrayed in the story because individuality is unknown to the people where no one is unique or excellent in any way. The people
Anthem, by Ayn Rand, is a very unique novel. It encircles individualism and makes the reader think of how people can conform to society and do as they are told without knowing the consequences and results of their decisions. Also, it teaches the importance of self expression and the freedom that comes along with being your own person and having the power to choose what path to take in life. Figurative language is used often in this book and in a variety of quotes that have great importance to the theme, plot, and conflict of the novel.
Ayn Rand’s Anthem is a politically satirical novel is set in a future society that is so highly collectivized that the word “I” has been banned. The world is governed by various councils who believe that man’s sole reason for existence is to enforce the Great Truth “that all men are one and that there is no will save the will of all men together” (Rand, 20). Any indication of an individual’s independent spirit is swiftly and brutally put down, with the transgressors being punished with severe prison sentences or even death.
The Fountainhead is a story about heroism. The novel is a triumphant cry of protest against all those who insist that life is about mediocrity. That man is destined to suffer. The greatness of The Fountainhead lies in its ability to inspire hope and confidence in its readers, to show how much is possible. For more than fifty years now, people all over the world have been looking towards this great book for support and sanction, for encouragement and hope, for ideas and answers. The Fountainhead applauds strength and greatness in human spirit, giving its readers a hero they can admire, respect, idolize and love. Howard Roark -- the hero, the ideal man, the human being.
Many people have trouble being apart of a society. These troubles come from trying to fit in, which is also known as conforming. Another trouble is trying to express one’s own style with one’s own opinion. This is a trouble due to the fact that many people have the fear of being frowned upon when being the black sheep of the group if one’s opinion does not correspond with other opinions. This is where one’s own sense of who they are, individuality, and trying to fit in, conformity, can get confused. A nickname for conformity is “herd behavior” which is the name of an article where the author relates animals that herd with people that conform. Many people have a different philosophy of this topic which will be expressed in this essay. An important
Rhetoric by definition is the art of persuasion by speaking and writing; being able to sway someone else’s opinion to match or appear similar to your own. Aristotle has given further definition to rhetoric. He created the rhetoric triangle. The rhetorical triangle uses the three basic credentials that people use to make decisions. They are ethos, or credibility of the author or speaker; pathos, or ability to draw emotion out of your audience; and finally the logos, or the logic of the message being sent out and determined valid by the audience. I feel that one of the best example that I could find of the rhetoric triangle is the character Ellsworth Toohey, in the novel The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. This character uses every part of the rhetoric
Anthem is a short novelette written by Ayn Rand in 1937 and vividly expresses the Rand’s beliefs in praising the human being’s ego and rationalism that never changed during her life. From the literary point of view, Anthem could be compared with Neil Peart’s 2112 album as its basis can be observed in the song. Both works show a grim vision of a world of dark ages in the future where their main characters suffer from lack of free choice and struggle to find out their individuality in a fearful and ignorance society. Since there are many similarities between the novel and the song, this paper will compare and discuss the conflicts, discoveries, accomplishments, and the common theme of both works that involve the protagonists in their way to individualism and
Throughout the book “Anthem” the city has many rules and controls. Such as, not loving any person over another. Not saying the forbidden word “I”. Not stealing from another. With these rules and controls Ayn Rand created a collective society, but with the idea of a utopian society. The definition of Utopia is “ an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.” The rules and controls listed above and the many more that are in the book “Anthem” describe a society trying to become collective but in a utopian way.
The ultimate motive of both the altruist and egoist is personal gain. Separating the two ideologies is the method by which this is accomplished. For the altruist, addressing the needs of humanity is purportedly the sole purpose of existence. Egoists, on the other hand, refuse to act if an action does not directly benefit themselves. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand addresses the function of altruists and egoists within society through character development. There are four characters in particular who distinctly exhibit the attributes of altruistic and egoistic individuals: Catherine Halsey, Peter Keating, and Ellsworth Toohey possess altruistic qualities; whereas, Howard Roark is explicitly egoistic.
Even though there are many arguments against these theories, there are many points that support it. There is no such thing as ethical objectivism because as said in “The argument of Relativity”, every society around the world has different beliefs and ways of acting. Not everyone shares the same opinion. As said in “The Argument of Queerness”, we would not able to understand these objective values because we would need to have some type of power that is not in our ordinary accounts of sensory perception so this means we are incapable of understanding them. We also know that we make decisions not only based on our moral values but on the experiences we have been through time. In the end, I still believe Mackie is correct and there are no objective
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Cultural Relativism and Ethical Objectivism/Universalism are two approaches to morality. There are benefits and issues with either approach. However, after close examination and evaluation, it is clear that the reasoning behind Ethical Objectivism is more sound.
In our text book the book describes moral absolution as “a rational nature, and reason can discover the right action in every situation by following an appropriate exceptionalness principle“(Pojman, p. 71), while moral objectivism is describes as “valid rules of actions should generally adhere to but that, in cases of moral conflict, may override by another moral principle “(Pojman, p. 76). The major difference between the two is that with moral absolution one must adhere to one’s moral situation like “don’t tell a lie” in any situation, while in moral objectivism one could see the moral issues that a situation brings up and one could choose the better of the two or the lesser of two evils.
In ones adolescent years, an important figure or role model taught the values of morality, the importance between right and wrong and the qualities of good versus bad. As the years, decades, and centuries have passed by, the culture of morality and the principles that humankind lives by have shifted and changed over time. In the article, “Folk Moral Relativism”, the authors, Hagop Sarkissian, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright and Joshua Knobe discuss six different studies to support their new hypothesis. However, in order to understand this essay, one must comprehend the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is based on whether or not the view of what someone else believes in, is morally correct or incorrect. For instance, moral objectivism is not centered on a person’s beliefs of what is considered right and wrong, but instead, is founded on moral facts.
Moral relativists are unable to hide the inevitable consequences that would arise from a society based solely on the belief that morality is relative to each person. This is because there are simply moral truths that apply to everyone whether anyone believes them or not. These moral truths are undeniable and any attempt at denying them would result in undesirable effects. Moral relativism would imply that societies could function if members collectively believed that morality is relative to each person. This implication is false because there have been times in history where society has crumbled due to immoral actions, law and order is based on certain moral truths, and there wouldn’t be a substantial right and wrong in a morally relativistic