Below the surface of BioShock

Much digital ink has been spilled over the philosophical and artistic qualities of BioShock, whether in conversation over the art deco stylings, giving advice regarding the gameplay, or in debate over the philosophical underpinnings of the world presented by the game. In the last year, with Ayn Rand's philosophical resurgence among the US political opposition, the question of Rand's work and BioShock has perhaps never been more pertinent: is rational self-interest good?

Clearly, BioShock is intended as a critique of Rand's ideas, in some way--but how? One basic commentary on the game takes Andrew Ryan as the Randian ideal and sees the game's critique as having already taken place by the time of the player-character's arrival in Rapture. Seen this way, the failure of the city and the slow revelation of just how depraved it had become under the collective belief in individualism are intended to suggest to players that any attempt to build a society on such principles must collapse.

Another possibility, suggested by Clint Hocking, is that the game could be immersing us in what it means to be an Objectivist--getting us to act in ways that we would not normally act, and then showing us vividly the consequences thereof, both positive and negative. I recommend highly his above critique of the game, wherein he suggests that the way the game is played conflicts with the message of the story, and I respond to his arguments below.

A third option is that the actions of the NPCs in the game reflect different visions of Objectivist ethics, and we are to see the flaws in the system by their failings. Andrew Ryan acts much like John Galt from Atlas Shrugged: hoisting the world of the business and technological elite on his shoulders and transplanting them to a new, paradisiacal community. The other Objectivist character goes by the name Atlas... enough said.

I roughly support the third interpretation, and I have several thoughts about the matter which I present below.

Spoilers throughout.

1: Though Clint claims that "help[ing] Atlas" and "seek[ing] power" are different and contradictory paths to progress, in the game world, they are not. Randians certainly can engage in trades for mutual benefit, and helping Atlas in exchange for his guidance through the perils of the first few levels and the belief that he will help you escape the underwater world is far from altruistic. Atlas appears to believe the player-character believed he was acting altruistically--he mocks the PC for believing his deception about his wife and child--but there always has been something of a difficulty for rational egoists separating autohedonic altruism from the real thing.

2: When it is revealed that helping Atlas was as little a choice for the in-game character as it is for the player, BioShock is asking whether we can accurately psychoanalyze ourselves. How Objective can we really be about our own reasons for acting? We can say that we want something because it intrinsically makes us happy or reflects some proper moral code--but differentiating that feeling from a socially-imposed set of values is difficult if not impossible. Similarly, it is complicated to try to step back from Randian philosophy and ask: am I following this philosophy because I, after a process of reflection and balancing of arguments, believe it to be correct, or am I enthusiastic about this moral system because it fits my preexisting preferences or has other material benefits not provided by other systems?

3: BioShock eloquently points out a fundamental dissonance within egoist theory: what happens when the principles of egoism conflict with its goals? Andrew Ryan is presented as a Randian hero at the beginning of the story, yet he allows himself to be killed to make a point. Fontaine, on the other hand, scrapes life together until the very last--using his rational faculties to manipulate other, weaker, more noble people into doing his bidding by subverting the principles that Andrew Ryan upholds. Ultimately, Fontaine outlasts Ryan and has him killed. Randian egoism as portrayed by Fontaine is rather more cutthroat than that of Ryan--and perhaps that is the only consistent way to live as a Randian.

Ultimately, as the third comment suggests, I see the deepest critique of Rand in the interaction of the two nemeses. To truly immerse a player in Objectivism, I recommend one of Clint's games: Far Cry 2. In that game, more than in BioShock, the player repeatedly is asked to make shockingly egoistic decisions to stay alive, resulting in many, many deaths. All of the apparent altruism in the game, while perhaps making the player feel warm and fuzzy, is ultimately done out of desperation for medicine--until the final act of sacrifice, which the player can opt out of. See the next post for more.

In any case, BioShock constantly rewards the player verbally for acting as non-Objectivist as possible: killing those who would otherwise kill the PC, but saving as many people as possible. At the end of the game, the PC does not deal the final strike--others (that he has saved by his actions) do so for him. I take the game to have set up a strong polarity between the player and the Ryan/Fontaine side, with the player's opposition to becoming like them constantly reinforced both through the approval of Tenenbaum and the thanks of the Little Sisters and through the shocking fate that strikes anyone cruel or self-interested in the game.

Only by helping others, the game seems to say, can we help ourselves.


Next: Inducing moral nihilism in Far Cry 2