“In dynamiting Cortlandt homes, Howard Roark breaks the Law. What is the moral and Philosophical argument for the rectitude of his action?”
To fully understand the question laid before us, we must first understand the difference between an egotist and an altruist.
Throughout the history of mankind, the creator, the egotist, has been persecuted. Look back through time: the great thinkers, the great creators, were all scorned, persecuted, even murdered in their time. Socrates? Sentenced to death by his fellow Athenians. Today history looks on his death as the end of a golden time in Ancient Greek culture. Galileo? he was confined to his house and declared a heretic. Today, he is hailed for his Heliocentric Theory. Charles Darwin? People laughed at his Theory of Evolution. Today, his Theory is widely disputed, but still upheld within a good majority of society. Vincent Van Gogh? People didn’t understand him. No one would buy his art. Today, his paintings sell at record prices. The point is, all of the great thinkers, creators, were persecuted or shunned in their time. They were “weirdos,” “untouchables,” “those not to be dealt with.” Not until after they were long gone did society realize what they had done. They had wanted nothing more to create, or think, and live for those thoughts or creations, and we crushed it with an impunity unrivaled. We fear it. We do not understand how someone could not live for anyone but themselves, and we crush them, like a harmless spider, before we have time to realize they are no harm to us.
But what about Altruists? Is their cause not noble? Is theirs not the virtuous path, making their life about those around them? Think of this: can you breath for others? think for others? blink for others? man was not created to do for anyone but himself. He was made to do for himself, and be unconcerned with the needs of others. Altruists reverse basic human nature: to look out for good ‘ol number one. Where a person created as a complete altruist, all that would be left is a void: he would care for naught but those around him. He would give no heed to his own thoughts, only to those of others. He would be the opposite of what man should be, the opposite of true human nature.
So where does this come into the argument regarding howard Roark and the dynamiting of Cortlandt? He is but an egotist being persecuted, as is throughout history. He is being punished for creating, and destroying that creation when it’s form was perverted by others. That building, Cortlandt, was his alone. He had every right to destroy it, even more so when it was defiled by others. He had not even desired monetary, or any other form of payment, other than seeing it built, for his creation: “I agreed to design Cortland for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. It was not paid.” Simply put, he did not care for the money or notoriety that were to be given to the architect of Cortlandt. All he wanted was the satisfaction of seeing his building erected, it did not matter if it was erected under the name of another.
As in all other cases, he was persecuted. Although not through law, he had overcome that obstacle. He had been persecuted by being forced, in his mind, to destroy that which he created.