Courtroom Drama, Ayn Rand, and Your Local Theatre

My favorite quote from the Ayn Rand's essay on the site mentioned above argues that laissez-faire capitalism is the most objective system because "[i]t is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." Forgive me if I am slightly skeptical, but I find it difficult to believe that laissez-faire capitalism, even if it is the best system known to man, helps end violence. For example, in a play called Night of January Sixteen, somebody has been murdered, not for altruistic or religious philosophy but for self-interested monetary greed and possibly for lust. In fact, these same ethics probably caused two murders. Regardless of who committed the murders, a gangster has played some part in either murdering the victim or at least in obscuring the facts that the jury must use to shape reality.

And this deals only with the logical questions. What about the emotions that work into our decisions? Even if you believe the accused is guilty, do you convict a good actor? What if the accused is a good actor, the economy is positive, and the prosecutor is a Starr?

In "The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary", Dr. Leonard Peikoff says, "The Law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is." Night of Janury Sixteen is a successful play because it presents a realistic scene, offers the characters clear objectives that come together for a charged conflict, and leaves the audience with two opposing, irreconcilable sides to an important case. The play also offers no clear picture of what happens, and we have to consider a play successful when the audience leaves the theatre considering, discussing, and even debating. If the playwright's intention is simply to make us use the type of logic by which we perceive reality, then that objective is also met. But I'm not convinced that the jury or the audience has the faculty to perceive the nature of the thing (in this case he events of the murder); therefore, the jury's actions (the verdict) cannot be based on the real "what it is."

Who wins? I believe you lovers of

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4 5