In this play, our protagonist, Andrew Undershaft, makes weapons for a living and sells them to the highest bidder (regardless of whether they're friends or foes), and his family has a big problem with that. So, the ethics of enabling war and violence come up a lot in conversations among the family. According to people like Lady B and Barbara, it's immoral to facilitate violence and death—and then to get rich off of it—but in Andrew's attitude it's pretty different (obviously). By the end of the play, he's actually gotten some of the others to agree with him that making weapons for those around the world who need them might just be the most moral thing to do after all.
Questions About War/Violence
- Why is there so much emphasis on violence and aggression among the poor, particularly with respect to women? What do those references achieve as far as the play's overall themes/interests go?
- We know that people like Barbara and Lady Brit think encouraging or even just enabling violence is immoral, but where does Andrew stand on that? He actually has strong moral convictions, so what do they have to say about violence and his role in "facilitating" it?
- Where are the characters' views regarding violence inconsistent or even hypocritical?
Chew on This
The play essentially turns Barbara's moral universe upside down by the end. Her morality, which assumes that violence is wrong and must be discouraged/prevented, is rejected in favor of Andrew's view that violence is a necessary and unavoidable part of life—and the most moral thing to do is recognize and respond to that reality.
The violence and aggression we see among the poorer characters—and particularly directed against women—highlights a hypocrisy in the Army's stance: the Army might be against war and violence and disdain the rich, but poverty actually leads to just as much violence . . .