Final answer:
In 'Fahrenheit 451,' Beatty justifies the societal book ban by claiming people chose comfort over complexity, whereas Faber sees this as a loss of intellectual depth and morality. Their contrasting views illustrate the novel's core conflict between conformity and the pursuit of truth.
Step-by-step explanation:
Comparing Beatty's and Faber's Views in Fahrenheit 451
In Fahrenheit 451, Captain Beatty presents a version of history that justifies the society's repression of books and independent thought. According to Beatty, the suppression of literature was a public choice, based on the desire for comfort and simplified happiness. He argues that the people preferred to be unburdened by the complexities of literature and philosophical thought, which led to outlawing books in favor of mass media and shallow entertainment.
Contrastingly, Faber, a former English professor, contests Beatty's perspective by arguing that the loss of books represents a deep loss of knowledge and critical thought. Faber sees the demise of literature as a decline in society's intellectual rigor, empathy, and moral compass. He believes that the books and the contemplation they inspire are essential for a rich and meaningful life.
The contrast between Beatty's and Faber's versions of history highlights the central conflict in Fahrenheit 451: the tension between conformity and the pursuit of truth. While Beatty upholds the status quo, advocating for a sanitized version of happiness, Faber champions the intellectual freedom and human connection that literature represents, even in a society that violently opposes it.