**Warning: Possible Spoilers. This is my understanding of the world of Rapture from what I've seen and read. If you haven't played the demo, there are a few solid spoilers.**
I doubt anyone was made to read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in school. Its political views are very libertarian, and considering the incredibly liberal view of the Teacher's Union and universities, these people would more likely burn the book than read it.
I read it though. I was a staunch conservative until about 2005 when I realized the whole system was a sham and became a libertarian. I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they don't hurt anyone else.
Objectivism goes one further. Objectivism tosses out the notions of morality or honor and simply focuses on bettering oneself. Rand's concept was essentially that man's greatest duty is to better himself regardless of the consequences of those around him, and the true goal is to reach the pinnacle of humanity.
I know, sounds like a philosophy paper so far. Here's how it ties in with Bioshock.
As I'm sure everyone knows, Bioshock takes a lot of concepts from Objectivism and looks at them practically. Andrew Ryan, the game's assumed antagonist (can't tell yet, I just played the demo), is the personification of Objectivism. As every who's seen the opening sequence knows, he tosses out the notions of God and Country, and focuses on self-improvement.
That's where the whole thing is flawed, and why Rapture went to hell.
The concept consists of Moochers and Looters. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand defines the Moochers and Looters as those who depend on the invention and creativity of the enlightened people of the time to live good lives, but simultaneously despise them for being better or smarter or richer. I figure along with the scientists and engineers Andrew Ryan brought with him to Rapture, he had to bring some janitors, chefs, waiters, and all the other people who were essential to the basic running of Rapture. These people became the Moochers, who benefited from the creations, but despised the creators. Thus the whole fight over Adam, those signs near the bathysphere of people begging to be let out, and the constant struggle in the city. They revolted, seemingly tired of being looked down upon by the elite. They wanted the power they were assumedly not entitled to, i.e. the Plasmids.
Andrew Ryan seems to have invented the Plasmids, since his name's on all the ads. Naturally he'd want compensation for his creation. But the Moochers, the workers, they wanted it for themselves. But they didn't have the scientific know-how nor the presence of mind to understand the consequences of genetic restructuring. So everyone Ryan brought down to offer freedom to create were killed by the jealous working class. It's very French Revolution in that way. Or Russian Revolution, or damn near any revolution where the working class was being repressed. See the flaws inherent in the system!
I think that, once more people start getting their hands on the game, there is going to be a lot of political discussions revolving around who's right in the game, and how the metaphor of the Big Daddies and Little Sisters take part in the larger scheme.
Personally, I can see the Little Sisters being the poor people of a society taking Adam as their equivalent to welfare as literally sucked out of the bodies of those with Adam aka the rich. The Big Daddies are the government protecting them, and anyone who gets in their way will have hell to pay. Of course, as stated above, I'm a libertarian, so that's just my view.
Damn, this game is gonna rock out loud.
|
Farktoid's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
I don't think the game is really anti-objectivist or anything, they only seem to show how people ultimately suck at the utopia thing.
And if the Little Sisters are the poor, that would explain why they have the highest mobility; since the poor class always are the most socially and geographically mobile of all classes. But then you'd have to kill a lot of governments and exploit a lot of poor to better yourself. Not really the pinnacle of humanity if you ask me :)
I like the concept of a quick and proliferating "poor class" represented by the Little Sisters. And as the player, you must kill the Big Daddies, i.e. the Government, to get at the poor. but when the government is destroyed, you ultimately have a choice to strip the poor of all its assets (Adam) or allow it to live, receiving a smaller amount.
I've also read that allowing the Little Sisters to live brings a different ending as opposed to killing them and taking all their Adam. It seems that the player is the Revolution in this scenario. After the American Revolution, the government was given to the People through Democracy, thus sparing the poor from tyranny. But in others, such as the Caesar's rise to power after the fall of the Senate, the Caesar received total power. I think the game will reflect the player's choices in this manner.
Or maybe I'm being way too ambitious. But hey, the game's sitting at 99 on the Metacritic chart, so they did something right.
But if the you choose to save the Little Sisters (as the poor), why would you receive half the resources (you get 1/2 the amount of Adam if you save them instead of consuming them)? If the player is in the position of the global Superpower, then the poor would first become a cost rather than a form of income. Even if they are often the backbone of society's machinery. That would then mean the player should take all their resources in order to survive himself.
But then again, eating little children for their Adam sounds like a good way to fall into corruption yourself.
Also, the American Revolution and its Constitution may have been the pinnacle of putting liberty into word AND action. But the system of taking what is yours to reach the top has only created a new form of economic royalty and classes of poor. I'm not sure if the Founding Fathers had corporate America in mind when they wrote down that piece of paper. Alas, that may just be my eurotrashness talking :)
I am, of course, messing with you.
I too am a libertarian, and while I despise the nanny state, I think going overboard to Randian Objectivism's self-interest morality is inherently flawed and clashes with known biologically-driven phenomena like reciprocal self-interest (i.e. the golden role, mutual back-scratching, etc.) I think positions like humanism (secular or otherwise) tend to follow reciprocal self-interest more closely.
Also, glad you've finally come over from the Dark Side :-)
P.S. msg me on AIM some time, damnit! (same screen name as always)
- Z from college
I am, of course, messing with you.
I too am a libertarian, and while I despise the nanny state, I think going overboard to Randian Objectivism's self-interest morality is inherently flawed and clashes with known biologically-driven phenomena like reciprocal self-interest (i.e. the golden role, mutual back-scratching, etc.) I think positions like humanism (secular or otherwise) tend to follow reciprocal self-interest more closely.
Also, glad you've finally come over from the Dark Side :-)
P.S. msg me on AIM some time, damnit! (same screen name as always)
- Z from college
All this talk about b.s. libertarianism and bioshock is just you guys standing in front of a perverbial mirror jacking off while flexing your "brain" biceps.
"I do believe this is similar to this." Its a fucking game where guys get drills in their hands, its entertainment, trying make it sound all high brow is bullshit. We still have games out there where you blow peoples brain out, fuck hookers and kill giant monsters while riding your horse.
Considering games with great "stories" or "atmospheres" anything more than just so 0s and 1s that entertain us for a few hours is just nerds trying to raise the sophistication level of something that is only 3 steps away from basically sitting in a corner masturbating, they are both entertaining, only a quick fix, and overall, just a distraction from going outside and interacting with real people.
You're a complete twit, by the way, and your anti-intellectualism is absolutely moronic.
You are basically saying that we intellectuals should stop thinking about the deeper influnces of works of art, such as Bioshock. You are telling us not to think deeply thus dumming down the people of society, and discouraging deep thought.
Your probably on your computor right now, and how do you think it got there? Well, some greedy guy was like, imma make myself a lot of money by coming up with this idea for a computor, so he thinked hard, and engineered a home desktop, and is the richest man in the world, Bill Gates.
I know, I know, he didnt rly invent the computor first, but he was the one that made it practical, and sold the most, and sparked the market. I am rly bullshiting this right now cause I know nothing about the computor buisiness considering I am only 16 yrs old and didnt see the computor industry come into power.
Allright, tangent is now completed, so what im basically saying is that dont discourage people to think deeply or else the people that you depend on to do that will not invent the next big thing.
BOO YA BITCH, YOU JUST GOT EJACULATED IN THE FACE BY MY MIND DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(this was directed to FREEDOMFIGHTER)
No, sorry, false. Objectivism certainly does not toss out morality, it proscribes an absolute, objective morality, independent of an individual's subjective emotions. Your statement "I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they don't hurt anyone else." is an objectivist sentiment: Rand would have classified hurting someone for personal gain as immoral (except as an act of defense against someone who has initiated the use of violence.) The achievement of excellence certainly is a proper human goal, but one should do so through one's own ability and effort, not by leeching off others. That's what objectivist ethics are about.
[quote="Farktoid"]"Personally, I can see the Little Sisters being the poor people of a society taking Adam as their equivalent to welfare as literally sucked out of the bodies of those with Adam aka the rich. The Big Daddies are the government protecting them, and anyone who gets in their way will have hell to pay. Of course, as stated above, I'm a libertarian, so that's just my view."[/quote]
I see it rather as the Little Sisters being innocent and harmless. You have the choice to harvest their "Adam" for your own benefit (making you a thief, a murderer, and in some ways a looter.) or spare their lives. An objectivist would not harvest them. I like the metaphor of the Big Daddies as a government protecting the rights of its citizens, that is consistent with objectivist politics. The ones in the game seem broken though, they attack me without provocation :/ I only killed them in self-defense, and spared the Little Sisters.