Tolkien & killling?

[Nenya]

This one has interested me a while.
As we all know, Tolkien had seen two wars, and fought in the other one. He had seen almost all of his friends get killed, been in great danger himself, and feared for his son's life. All of this must've influenced his writings a great deal. Now, my question is, what were Tolkien's views on killing?

Let's try and find the answere from his books:
In LotR, there are lots of violence and battles. Most of them pretty straightforward, with "goodguys" and "badguys". Never is the enemy an equal human being (or hobbit, or whatever, you get the point),but an orc or something similar, making the killing far more ethically justified. But isn't that what you do in a war: make the enemy a faceless monster (an orc, if you will)? Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it? Too bad this has nothing to do with real life.
But on the other hand, we have Frodo. The hobbit, who starts by saying that Gollum should've been killed right away. By the end of the book, he didn't even want to touch a sword, and believed that even Saruman had the right to live. Is this what Tolkien was really trying to tell us, that no-one has the right to decide whether somone should live or not? (Gandalf had it a bit more eloquentely phraised, but he had had a couple of more centuries to think about it than me... smilies/wink.gif) That Frodo's growth could somehow symbolize his own?
And how does that sum up with all those oh-so-necessary battles, without wich ME would've been destroyed?

Now then. I'll leave you to it , and please forgive me if this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it with the search-thingy.
And please don't be cruel to me, I'm only a little hobbit-girl trying to express my thoughts and failing miseraby. Ah well, I'll blame the time (2am). smilies/wink.gif

~Elina

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Nenya ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I think Tolkien had many views about death, or at least his view on death was very complex. I think that it safe to say events in Tolkien's llife influenced him, especially WWI. Now I belive that one main point about death was this, as you said no-one has the right to decide whether somone should live or not

I actually believe in that myself. I belive no one is truly evil and no one deserves to die. Maybe Tolkien wanted to show the many aspects of killing and death. And through two ways. The first being killing from a much wider point of view, through war. It's is not whether someone deserves to die or not, its just kill or be killed. You have orders to fight the enemy, and those orders do not care about your feelings. For soldiers (the experienced ones, not the green soldiers who haven't seen war or death like they will), it is just killing. You don't think about how the other person feels. You are just carrying out orders and staying alive.

The second aspect I think is that killing on a smaller scale. I think that killing on a smaller scale is a lot tougher. Like gollum and Frodo. Frodo had to look at gollum face to face and think about killing him before he actually did. Now when Frodo did this, he couldn't kill him. He has time to look into the eyes of the person he'll kill. And he saw pity. Have you ever seen the movie The Dirty Dozen? In one part, a soldier is ordered to kill the kitchen crew, cooks, maids, butlers, and other like that. The soldier has to look them in the face and shoot them. He just couldn't do it. It's just so much harder like that and they are two different scenarios so you will get two different reactions. Now there are a lot more reactions than those, but I find them to be the most common. Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it?

I have to say no on that, especially because I believe nothing is purely evil. Tolkien made it good vs. evil/bad. And of course the orcs are portrayed as evil. But that doesn't mean they are. They have feelings too. Who knows, they might even have an orc family back in Mordor and his orc son might be asking the orc mommy where daddy is. They might not be defending their country, but they are forced to fight, whether they want to or not. It relly is sad if you think about it. It almost makes me want to cry. In war you try not to think about the killing aspect of it. It doesn't really matter if your side is good or not. You don't think about that either. If you are drafted and have to fight, then you fight. All you try to think about it survival.

I think Tolkien wanted to show how creul and cold really can be. There are a lot of aspects about killing. I think that if Tolkien wanted to really show how creul it was, in one of his works, he could have had two friends fight for separate sides and end up facing each other in war, on opposing sides. That was one thing that often happened in the American civil war, and I'm sure in other civil wars as well.

I can sum up a lot of what I said (but not all) into this one sentence: Killing is wrong and no one deserves to die, however in war, all that matters is survival. I think that Tolkien wanted to show that killing is wrong and war is horrible. I strongly disagree with the death penalty. I think it's very hypocritical. You say it's wrong to kill, then you kill that person for killing. But didn't you just say killing is wrong? I just hate it so much. I think that killing is wrong but sometimes it's necessary for survival and in war, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right.

Well that's how I feel about it and that's what I think Tolkien felt. Good thread Nenya.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Nenya]

Thankyou for replaying, Willie.

At the moment I won't comment anymore, but I'll just have to say that I too don't think that there are things purely bad. It was meant to be sarcastic, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There is a wonderful passage in 'The Steward and the King', RotK, that sums up the problem of killing in war very well. I think Tolkien is giving us his personal opinion when Éowyn answers the Warden of the Houses of Healing: Warden: 'The world is full enough of hurts and mischances without wars to multiply them.'
'It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden,' answered Éowyn. 'And those who have not swords can still die upon them. Would you have the folk of Gondor gather you herbs only, when the Dark Lord gathers armies?'

[Rumil]

I think the passage where Sam sees the fight between the Rangers of Ithilien and the men of Harad may reveal some of Tolkien's views on the matter.

Sam sees the battle of men vs men, a Southron is kiled near him and he wonders where the man lived, whether he was really evil or if he was just an ordinary man recruited by threats and lies.

[Orual]

Willie, read Twain's "The War Prayer." It deals with the issues you were speaking of. It's very beautiful, and really makes you think, especially at times like these.

I think that Tolkien probably thought just what you said, Nenya, and that most of his thoughts on killing were summed up in Gandalf's "Pity" speech. But I also think that he probably believed that killing in self-defense was justifiable, as Eowyn was basically saying.

Frodo knew that he could keep Gollum under control without using violence, because he knew what the power of the Ring could do. Sam, on the other hand, was incredibly (and understandably) distrustful of Gollum, and didn't know what the fact that Frodo had the Ring could do to to keep Gollum in check. So for Frodo to kill Gollum would be unjustified, since it wasn't necessary and there were other methods that he could use in self-defense.

~*~Orual~*~

[doug*platypus]

Ah, a lovely thread full of virtue that rekindles my faith in human nature! Truly, some of Tolkien's characters inject profound truisms about the nature of war and of killing. But it is never thrown bluntly in our face, as done by so many cheesy Hollywood movies and countless millions of books. It is a rare, subtle treatment of the issue. I am constantly amazed at the depth of what on the surface appears a one dimensional work. I don't know whether to feel pity or anger towards people who don't bother to delve below the exterior.

I particularly like the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag, in what must be my second favourite chapter (next to The Shadow of the Past), The Choices of Master Samwise. They never appear noble or wise, or even kind, but nevertheless show their 'human' sides by revealing how badly they are treated by their masters, and how little they actually want to fight. They are caught between the Whips of Sauron and the Swords of the Elves/Edain. Evil they may seem, but even Orcs are living creatures. I don't think Tolkien believes that any killing is without regret or wrong, or, sorry I can't find the word I'm looking for!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well put Doug. Maybe the other word you were looking for would be 'guilt' or maybe 'justice'. Anyways, great post.

Orual- Is that a book you were talking about? Or can it be found with others in a book. I can't find it at any library. Anyways, good post, and everyone else for that matter (Rumil/Estelyn).

[Bill Ferny]

I don’t own the letters. That being said, in another thread, it is pointed out that Tolkien when he latter devised the origin of orcs (opposed to the corrupted elf theory) stated that orcs are living extensions of Melkor’s evil will. Even their rebellions and chaotic activities in the absence of their masters is an extension of Melkor’s original rebellious will.

Thus, orcs are the epitome of evil, which is demonstrated in the conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. While that conversation reveals that orcs have distinct personalities, you would be hard pressed to prove any virtue resided in their psyches. Just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks, especially since their hopes and ambitions come from malicious and rebellious greed, rape and pillage that benefits themselves directly, and not their present masters.

No doubt Tolkien, like most educated Christians throughout history, struggled with the reality of war. Though I’m no theologian, I did have the privilege of picking up some Catholic social morality theory while I was a seminarian. Perhaps I can illumine a rather dark corner of Christian morality that obviously influenced Tolkien’s conception of war in Middle Earth.

There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”. Jesus commands in one Gospel that when one is struck on the cheek, to turn and offer the other, but in another Gospel one of His very disciples is carrying a sword. He speaks of there being no greater love than laying down your life for a friend, speaks no words in His own defense, and willingly gives Himself up to execution at the hands of Roman soldiers, but never does He disparage the life of soldiery. Even though he says of the Roman centurion that he has never seen such faith in all of Israel, he tells the soldier to only keep faith, not change his profession.

The early Church struggled with the realities of defending home from the inevitable aggressions of neighbors, but at the same time gave high distinction to passive martyrdom. Paul was blunt about his Roman citizenship. Early Church apologists like Justin Martyr, while critical of the Roman state religion, considered themselves just as Roman, just as Hellenistic, as those who offered pagan sacrifice. Indeed, Justin Martyr considered his Christianity the missing keystone completing all of former Greek thought. With the official recognition of Christianity in the 4th century, Christians had to deal with the political and social realities of a dangerous world on a much larger scale. Christians now found themselves in positions of political authority, not the least of which, was emperor. The chronicler, Eusebius of Caesarea, in the 4th century wrote that God was the author of Constantine’s military victories. Saint Augustine of Hippo saw the acceptance of Christianity as the evolution of a City of God on earth. The role and activity of the soldier was given a Christian interpretation by people such as Eusebius and Augustine who saw the secular, not just the spiritual, world as an integral part of the City of God. Since the economic and political structure of the empire existed for the welfare of the Church, in the same way that Plato saw the plebeians and soldiers existing for the welfare of the philosopher/statesman in his Republic, it was the principle duty of the Roman soldier to protect the empire (physical well being), which in consequence protects the Church (spiritual well being). Soldier/saints, such as George and Martin, found their way into devotional life, and became important figures in the latter chivalric model.

Modern just war theories have their roots in this 4th century mentality, even though Augustine’s vision of a City of God modeled on late antiquity is no longer realistic. It’s not based on determining whether or not someone or some government is evil, rendering discussions about “killing being wrong because no one is completely evil” irrelevant. This is an important point to bare in mind: just war theory does not depend on a judgement in regards to the good or evil of a person or people, but is determined solely on an evaluation of the actions, both present and past, of the parties involved and their responsibilities to others in their care.

A just combatant is someone or some government that protects both the spiritual and physical well being of his charges or a government’s populace in the face of a legitimate threat from an aggressor that does not, or attempts to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of a person or people under the tyranny of another that does not. This is a bit more complicated than the typical self-defense justification. Surprisingly, such a definition does not allow for self-defense unless another person, for whom the defendant is responsible, is threatened. Equally surprising for most people, it also allows for aggression if it can be determined that such aggression is intended to ensure the spiritual and physical well being of others. Take, for example, the person who attacks a rapist in order to stop the rapist from harming another person; it would be unjust, in fact, not to act.

The just war theory hinges on determining whether or not a person or government truly respects the spiritual and physical well being of those for whom it is responsible, or for others who by happenstance they become responsible. Such a determination is highly interpretative and extremely problematic given today’s social complexities. For example, does the United States respect a foreign populace to the degree that it can impose its own will on that populace in regards to both its spiritual and physical well being, regardless of their government’s hostile or aggressive intentions against the United States? Does the United States embody a set of universal social principles that can justly be imposed on another people? Should the spiritual well being of a people be determined by their native religion, or the standard of secularization espoused by the United States? Does the native religion, as it exists, promote the spiritual well being of the populace, and who has the authority to make this determination?

One can see why Pope John Paul II, basing his judgement on Christian social teaching, was able to decry the social injustices of the Baathists and their leadership, but at the same time was unable to promote the actions of the United States against them… in either Gulf War. When some members of the media lumped John Paul with Chirac, they were terribly unfair. The pope’s opposition to the actions of the United States, whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, originated from an entirely different sphere of thought. At any rate, things were much easier in the days of Christian nations and empires. Secular nations muddy the water for a just war determination.

(Indeed, there are theologians who claim that the just war theory is antedated, and no longer reflects the realities of the modern world. They argue that the social, political and religious complexities of the modern world render the just war theory’s analysis impossible to determine, if not completely obsolete. Most of these theologians would rather we follow, in consideration of the uncertainties of a complex world, the path of utter pacifism, haling Gandhi’s non-violent/non-cooperation as the only legitimate means to combat injustices.)

This, however, is not the case in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. In fact, a just war analysis of the situation is incredibly elementary and explicit. Sauron and his minions represent the epitome of the aggressor nation that does not respect the spiritual or physical well being of their own populace, nor the populace which they wish to conquer. The defendants, the free peoples of Middle Earth, are clearly led by men and women that espouse the spiritual and physical well being of their peoples. They can march to war with the same utter certainty of justification that Mohammed believed he commanded when he and his cohorts raided merchant caravans on their way to and from Mecca. The notion of responsibility in the just war theory is demonstrated by the quotation provided by Estelyn. Éowyn argues rightly that her king has a responsibility to play the aggressor. It would be unjust, in fact, not to act.

[Nyneve]

We think the enemy is evil, and usually they think we are, which leads to both sides claiming to be fighting evil while, in a way, both sides are evil. It is discombobulating and I think the reason as to why it seems so complicated is because there are no Evil or Good unless one uses evil to describe yourself and good to describe the opposing force. It is all an issue of views and perspective and runs too deep to comprehend until one has died. Maybe that is what Tolkien is trying to say. Everyone wants to know answers toimpossible questions. Killing is cruel in some oppinions and fair in another. Like in the Bible. Followers of God fight wars sometimes in the name of God, but is not one of the commandments "though shall not kill?" God tests good people's faith with bad expereinces and horror and and seems not to punish the bad. But we know God is right and all will be just. Tolkien was very religious. Maybe he is trying to reflect these mysteries?

[ May 02, 2003: Message edited by: Nyneve ]

[aragornreborn]

Well if I understood you right. You're philosophy is you can't know what's what. If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong. And those must be discernible. Otherwise, what's the point? To relate that to the topic. War is justified if it is justified. If there is no standard or way of knowing justification, then there really is no point to war or anything else. All is futile.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong.

I have to disagree. Just because no-one knows what the point of life is doesn't mean there isn't one. There might not be one, but I believe there is. And you might have to wait to find out what it is, or/and, it might be different for every person. But just because you don'[t know what it is, doesn't mean it isn't there.

And there always doesn't have to be a right and/or a wrong. Both sides can be wrong. They can both do wrong deeds. All that matters is which is worse, but does that really matter? And both sides can be right too, there might be just a misunderstanding. It does happen.

[Nyneve]

I am not a philosopher, plato was a philosopher. Can you see your brain when you look in the mirror? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there! I meant that you should have faith and do whatever you believe is right. And life doesn't have a point if you say it doesn't to yourself.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Never is the enemy an equal human being (or hobbit, or whatever, you get the point), The Scouring of the Shire. Some of the Hobbits had gone over to "the evil side". We think the enemy is evil, and usually they think we are, which leads to both sides claiming to be fighting evil while, in a way, both sides are evil. But one of the roots of fantasy is that there is a "somebody" who is really and truly evil. In real life, everybody has a good side. (Oh, how sweet... smilies/tongue.gif ) But in Middle Earth... well, the closest to that that you can get is having once been good, and then gone bad (eg, Saruman.) You're not going to be able to tell us that Melkor had a peaceful side to his heart, that he spent his free time gardening and going to anti-war demonstrations. Tolkien was very religious. Maybe he is trying to reflect these mysteries? ...but that would be allegory, which we know Tolkien very much denied. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong. And those must be discernible. If you're talking about fantasy, I agree. If you're talking about real life, I most certainly don't. Could you say which one you mean? Killing isn't wrong, when the thing you kill is compleately evil, is it? Once again, the fantasy vs. reality problem. If you're talking about fantasy, but of course, go ahead. But in real life, there isn't anybody who is really and truly evil, and doesn't have something good abut them. (I sound like a sappy Disney movie, don't I?) I think it's very hypocritical. You say it's wrong to kill, then you kill that person for killing. Well, my comment to that is a bit off-topic, but still: I, 'in general', disagree with the idea of a human bein able to decide whether another lives or not, whether in war or court. But sometimes I think that it's much worse to live your whole life in jail, because a life ended is a life snapped out, a life in jail is a life wasted. Wouldn't it be terrible waking up every morning knowing that you woudn't choose what you did that day, that it had all been planned out and you couldn't change it? I think I understand peole who go mad in jail. Just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks Of course not! But it makes them human, which is something already, because being human means that there is a chance, however small, that you won't always be the way you are. Humanity allows for change. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”. If you mean the word "leharog", it is actually a word that is used for both, so we can't really know what it is supposed to mean in the Bible, I think.

~Menelien

Edit: I believe that was the longest post I have ever written. smilies/biggrin.gif

[ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: GaladrieloftheOlden ]

[Bill Ferny]

Menelien,

Of course not! But it makes them human

…in response to, “just because they had hopes and ambitions doesn’t make them good folks.”

Actually, I was referring to orcs. smilies/wink.gif

I don’t know enough about biblical Hebrew to comment, but I e-mailed the question to a gal who would, our resident Hebrew hermeneutics expert.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't know much Hebrew either, but I can speak the basics, because our school has firmly decided to beat the language into our heads smilies/mad.gif smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/wink.gif Actually, I was referring to orcs. smilies/wink.gif

Alright, it makes them people smilies/tongue.gif Not human people, but people nonetheless.

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

What I was saying was that there is a right. There is a wrong. There is a point to it all. The point or the truth might not always be apparent, but that doesn't mean it isn't there or isn't knowable and shouldn't be sought. Also, yes there is right and wrong. In real life and in fantasy (that is in any way logical). That doesn't mean that if there are two opinions one must be right and one must be wrong. If someone thought that apples were oranges and if someone else thought that apples were grapes, they would both be completely wrong. But the fact that apples are apples remains. To relate that to this issue, there is a time and a place for everything including war. But to decide when the proper time is requires that there be an absolute, knowable truth that can be applied to present situations. Otherwise, there is no measurement. There is no standard. There is no definition and then all would be useless.

Also, a person or persons aren't completely, irrevocably good or completely, irrevocably evil.

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Also, yes there is right and wrong. In real life and in fantasy (that is in any way logical). Sometimes it isn't like that. There is also opinion. Look, some people thought there should be war, some thought there shouldn't. There was. Now can we say that either side was wrong? That would be our opinion, not facts.

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

Yes, there is such a thing as opinion. But opinions are either right or wrong. That doesn't mean that if someone is right in one thing that the rest of his opinion is correct. It just means that opinions and portions thereof are right or wrong as well. I could be of the opinion that apples are blue fruit (yes, I love those apples). I'd be right that apples are fruit, but wrong that they are blue. Likewise, all opinions, including ones about war, are either right or wrong. Otherwise, what are they? If there is such a thing as right, wrong, and opinion, who decides what opinion is? Anyone? Is murder opinion? Theft? Lying? Cheating? Gossiping? Some of those things might seem obviously wrong. Other people may view some as opinion. Unless there is a complete set of standards, then there is no right or wrong at all which, as I've said, leads to futilety.

P.S. Truth can not always be measured by facts. Science can not measure things it can not experiment with and physically measure like the human mind. For example. science (where we get facts) can study the brain, but not the mind - the feelings and motivations of people.

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Trippo The Hippo]

First off I would like to say that I do not believe we should trun the downs into a arena for a big theological debate, but while the issue is being disscussed I will put in my 2 cents.

Unless there is a complete set of standards, then there is no right or wrong at all which, as I've said, leads to futilety.

I believe you are right on this we must have a set of standards to make decisions on. My personal set of standards is The Bible, and others have there own. They believe that people are right and wrong by their standards, and others believe differently by their own.

These are my feelings on the issue. I respect everyone elses though I might not take them as my own.

[Bill Ferny]

Menelien, aye, they are persons… persons with intrinsically evil wills. Humans don’t have intrinsically evil wills, in as much as all humans act according to a perceived good. Orcs act according to the will of their creator, Melkor… discord, destruction, etc.

Like my grandpappy always used to say: “Opinions are like ****holes, everybody’s got one, and they all stink.”

I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.” However, on an ontological level, you could take it as meaning the world is objectively real, no matter what you might think about it, and, in fact, what you think about it is probably wrong anyway.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

[Bill Ferny]

We parallel posted, Trippo. smilies/smile.gif

First off I would like to say that I do not believe we should trun the downs into a arena for a big theological debate

Too late… do a search of God, Catholic, creation, or free will. smilies/biggrin.gif

I believe you are right on this we must have a set of standards to make decisions on. My personal set of standards is The Bible, and others have there own. They believe that people are right and wrong by their standards, and others believe differently by their own.

Are you saying that the standard I use to judge is no better or worse than yours?

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Wow! I am awed... Bill Ferny, that was a much more understandable description of Just War Theory than my Ethics prof (a rabid pacifist) gave, I think you just enabled me to raise my grades. smilies/wink.gif And all while being extremely relevant.

And Menelien- insightful.

Willie: And there always doesn't have to be a right and/or a wrong. Both sides can be wrong. They can both do wrong deeds. All that matters is which is worse, but does that really matter? And both sides can be right too, there might be just a misunderstanding. It does happen.
I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Menelien: But one of the roots of fantasy is that there is a "somebody" who is really and truly evil. In real life, everybody has a good side. (Oh, how sweet... ) But in Middle Earth... well, the closest to that that you can get is having once been good, and then gone bad (eg, Saruman.) You're not going to be able to tell us that Melkor had a peaceful side to his heart, that he spent his free time gardening and going to anti-war demonstrations. Aaah, but there are good sides to bad characters in ME! How could anyone forget Smeagol/Gollum? That scene where Tolkien describes him as looking like a very old hobbit with his hand on Frodo's knee makes me cry every time I read it (I believe it's in the Stairs of Cirith Ungol). But there is little doubt in my mind which way Gollum actually went.

This conflict is seen in "good" characters too, Boromir, Denethor, and even Galadriel have moments where they look very dark, I'm not even certain that I classify Denethor as a good character by the end of his life.

Bill Ferny- you pointed out Jesus' "turn the other cheek" passage, and then that one of his disciples (I'm assuming you mean Peter at the betrayal) had a sword on his person. I thought I'd point out that it isn't surprising that Peter had a sword, as in (I believe it's Luke??) Jesus instructed the disciples to buy swords.

As for Tolkien's view of War I think the two quotes, Sam's and Eowyn's sum it up nicely. Sam feels the horror of it, and Eowyn sees the necessity of it for defense. Both of them prove able to see the other side, Sam kills and Eowyn becomes a healer.

Sophia

Edit:
I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.” LOL! Your grandpappy and mine would have liked each other... smilies/biggrin.gif

And as for Trippo's comment... I'm beginning to have flashbacks to some of my logic classes... principle of non-contradiction?

[ May 06, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[Lobelia]

Er- just a question here? Bill Ferny seems to be the gent who could best answer it, as the expert on things religious. Do the Orcs have free will or not? If they do, they're evil. If not, then strictly speaking, should they be counted as evil, whether or not they have families at home and play football in their non-combat time? In THE HOBBIT, they had their own communities, cities, kings and there are mentions of head-honcho orcs in the Appendices, but within LOTR itself, they seem to be pretty much eternal henchmen, with no real choice to be anything else. (I may have missed something : - D) I can understand why you HAVE to kill them - and, let's face it, they don't even like each other! But are they *intrinsically* evil?

[DaughterofVana]

In the Sil, it says that Melkor could not create things of his own, only pervert and bend things to his will. I took it that Sauron, as a "disciple," per se, of Melkor, is the same. Therefore, there isn't *really* an either-or stance on the issue, because when you say that someone is for the "evil" side, they are in actuality for the side of the perverted good.

No, I'm not repeating myself. This is a drastic step away from the "Is it not only a dream? Is it not all relative?" philosophy that some might use to explain ethics. In the Christian stance, good was good and then part of it became bad; not that good and bad are two different things existing independently. That is dualism, and something that I tend to believe didn't exist in ME. For if it did, we would have a *good* Eru and a *bad* Eru, existing independently, who each created Their creations (Manwe, Melkor, etc.) independently from each other. If that happened, then ME would have been a very different place. But we didn't have that--we had Eru creating the Valar, and one of those going horribly wrong. We have the perversion of good into bad. (And just because he said he didn't use allegory, GaladrieloftheOlden, doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't express truth as he saw it in his books.)

The fact that we have a title for something "good" and a title for something "bad" expresses that there is indeed a difference between the two. When we call something "bad" (as aragornreborn alluded to), we *have* to have some sort of standard to apply it towards. Because if we didn't, then how would we know if good *was* good and bad *was* bad? I can only tell if this red is the same shade as that flower outside my window if I can see and compare. And, likewise, I know very well if something isn't red, because when I hold it up against something that is *already* red it looks blue instead. "Okay, so how do I know I'm calling "red" red and "blue" blue? How do I know that this flower is actually red in the first place?" Because that knowledge had to be there before the titles would make any sense. If I differentiate between red and blue, it *must* be because there are some inherent differences between the two, and not just a different way of looking at it. I would have called both red, then, to follow up with the metaphor, and not bothered calling something blue in the first place.

You can't just say that this is learned behavior, and that's why I think one thing good and another bad. Because from the same people I learned the definition of bad and good from are the same people I learned the pretty red thing outside my window is called "flower" (and that it is red). If you go *that* route--that maybe the people who taught me bad and good were mistaken--then you better not stop there. If good and bad is an illusion, then *everything* is an illusion. Therefore, life has no meaning. Not a very nice thought. "Excuse me, I'm going to go hide under the bed."

So. Good and bad *must* have some difference, then, because we have affixed titles to them that call them what they are. Okay, then what about the opinion that the titles affixed to "good" and "bad" can be interchangeable depending on the context? Well. Is there anyone here who genuinely believes, in his or her own heart of hearts, that war, murder, pillaging, etc. *isn't* bad in itself? Sure, we may say that in some *instances* it is okay, but that doesn't mean that it makes the actual *act* okay. It just means that, in that particular instance, the standards are dropped because something else is more important. The definition is not changed.

Yes. War is a terrible, horrible thing. Yet in some instances, it is the only way we can defend ourselves. To not do so, to not "kill," is to submit to a worse sin: that of suicide. To not stand up for oneself and the things he or she believes in, to be trampled an enemy that wishes only to kill and destroy, that is madness. The orcs didn't just want to take over Rohan--they wanted to kill every last man, woman, and child within it, and burn the bodies until the black smoke rose into the air and the sky turned foul. A vast difference from just varying beliefs. It's all well and good if you believe differently then me, but if you try and *kill me* because of it? You threaten my family and my home and my life and the lives of my children? Stand back. I'm drawing my sword.

Okay. So were the orcs "bad" in themselves? I tend to think no, because they were once good. Are they not created, but perverted? Melkor and Sauron are both perversions on what were once holy, Eru-created things. Orcs, too. But is that creation "bad" now? Sure is. If a piece of cheese has gone all moldy and sour, and little bugs are crawling in and out of it, it still is cheese. But it's "bad" cheese, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Even though it once *was* good and then *became* bad, it doesn't mean that it still is bad now. A car rusts from the inside out. It is still a car? Yeah, you could call it that. But it ceases to be a "car" in the sense of the word. And how do I know it was a "car" once and now is not? Because I was told it was. Prove me wrong there, and you might as well prove me wrong everywhere else. If there is no bad and good, then why are we having this conversation in the first place? We wouldn't even know what "bad" and "good" was.

I hope I accomplished something in this post. If I said what everyone else was saying, well and good. But I tried; if that means anything.

-'Vana

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't quite get the religion question here. Could somebody elaborate? Yes, there is such a thing as opinion. But opinions are either right or wrong. If you're talking about things like the color of apples, what you're saying is right. Somebody who tells you apples are blue is either joking, wrong, severely color blind, mentally ill, or doesn't know their colors yet. But you can't say that somebody who disagrees with you on the war on Iraq is either joking, wrong, severely color blind, mentally ill, or doesn't know their colors yet. Can you?

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it.

Yes. Very nicely put, Sophia the Thunder Mistress.

Well, Galadriel of the Olden, you may not like my answer. Because my answer can be rather inflamtory in today's politically correct society where apples may be apples to me, oranges to you, or grapes to someone else and everyone is OK with that. Everything could be relative or unknowable. If so, life is pointless. There is no real meaning or possibilities or life itself, really. On the other hand, there could be an absolute set of standards (good) and the deviation from those standards (as Daugther of Vana put it), bad. If that is true and there is only one set of standards (obviously there can't be more than one set of absolutes), then anything conforming to the set of standards is right and anything rebelling from the set is wrong. In the case of religion (as well as anything else), there is truth. There must be some religous truth and it must be knowable. If you believe that (if you don't I'll go right back to saying everything's pointless), then, yes, all but one religion is wrong. That isn't as harsh as it sounds. People aren't forced to believe things. It's their choice. And If they choose to believe that life has a point, they need to find that point, the truth. It's their responsibility.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

Well, here I respectfully diagree. Yes, there must be a standard of measurement (which would be inherently accurate or it is not a standard). But if you say that that standard is based upon human opinion I beg to differ. The standard must be from beyond human "creation." Otherwise, all is relative. There is no reason why I should believe one person's standards over another's. Therefore, the standard must be present but not the creation of man. Man certainly discovers it, but the source must be outside of man. By discover, I mean that men discover, for example, the scientific laws. Man did not create them them, certainly. He gave them names, but didn't create them. Through logical study and experimentation of the natural world, men were able to discover somr truths. The only way you can "know" that something is true is through logical study and experimentation. In the past I've used know in a different way. When I said that all truth is knowable, I meant all truth is comprehendable. What we can know through science is absolute fact. We can discover truth as far as we can logically study and experiment. But science has its limits. It is limited to the natural, physical world. Philosophy, ethics, and religion can not be measured by science (synonymous to logical study and experimentation) because they can not be logically studied or experimented with. They are in what I'll call the super-natural. They are beyond the physical nature of things. They are of a different quality. As such, they can not be known by the only method that we can absolutely know anything by - science. That's where knowing as comprehending comes in. There certainly must be a truth in religion because religion spawns all super-natural ideas and super-natural things exist or everything is pointless. But, since we can not logically study or experiment with the super-natural, it can not be known as absolute fact. The truth does exist and is comprehendable, but it is not absolutely, factually, knowable because religion is faith. And faith is not based on fact. It can't be by definition. Faith is based on faith. You have to trust and believe that what you believe is right. That does not mean you just pick a religion and blindly hope it's right. While faith can not be proved by facts, facts point you to faith. Faith (a religion) can be trusted through inner conviction based on outward evidence. By outward evidence I mean that if the religion says that oranges are grapes then obviously it is wrong. If science can prove the religion wrong, the religion is wrong. If the religion says that oranges are oranges, then at least you know that it is correct scientifically. If a religion is completely correct scientifically, it has passed the first test. The test of outward evidence. It must also pass the inner conviction test. The supernatural rules over the inner conviction aspects of a religion - They "why's" and "how's." And, I can't tell you how to prove your inner convictions because they can't be proved. It's faith. Some general guidelines are does the religion makes sense? Does it contradict itself? Does it work? Do you have a purpose? Is your life changed? True religion must exist, and there must be only one true religion. Our job is to find it and have faith.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

LOL, sorry! That does have personal implications for you doesn't it! I might have to switch to oranges...

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I don't think this is what aragornreborn meant. I think he was saying that even when both parties are wrong, there is something right and neither party happens to be doing it. Well, once again using the example of the war, there are three things we could have done and neither is perfectly "right". We could go to war (as we did) and kill a lot of innocent civilians, but overthrow a bad regime. We could ignore it, no American soliers would get killed, and Saddam would go on happily killing off his people, or we could attempt peace talks, which most likely wouldn't work as Saddam was not cooperating. Of course there are many 'ifs' here. We might go to war and not kill anyone. Saddam might have stopped killing his people. Peace talks might have worked. But probably not.
(I need to leave right now, so I'll edit more into this post later.)

~Menelien

[The X Phial]

Several points:
First of all, Tolkien vehemently denied that any of his characters were purely good or evil. The elves strayed from the will of Eru by living in a nostalgic never-never land of the past and by being far too in love with their own works. Even the valar and the maiar stray from original plans, sometimes resulting in good (Aule) sometimes not (Saruman). If there are no purely good characters then by corrollary there are no purely evil ones. In the letters Tolkien berates the public for refusing the see the enemy as human and humane with strengths as well as weaknesses. Anyone (society) can be fooled or coerced under the right circumstances (though he excluded the saints from this assessment). IIRC, he felt this was the result of living in a fallen world.

Secondly, on the position of facts versus opinions. Apples are not blue, unless you live in a place where blue means something else. Apples are absolute (being tangible objects) but language and culture are not. As for the need for things to be right and wrong, how do you ever know if it is? To answer the analogy: If one person calls what we know to be pears "apples" and another person calls what we know to be oranges "apples" neither are objectively right. You insist there is one religious truth, if this is so might not everyone be calling other fruits apples? Just because there is a standard doesn't mean anyone has hit upon it.

Edit: Typos suck

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[aragornreborn]

Well, real quick. I'm not saying that any of those three options were perfect. I'm just saying there is a right and wrong. And we can make right decisions by using the standard of right and wrong. That doesn't mean that any of those three option are all completely right. Some have right points to them. And some of them would result in tragedy. But our job is to use the standards we have and then decide what we should do. We will mess up sometimes. And so will others. But there is always a right a thing to do. There still might be tragic side effects. But that doesn't make it wrong. Just sad. We need to seek to do what's right. Not the easiest or the happiest solution. And happiness will always be brought about by doing what's right. Maybe not right away but it will eventually.

[aragornreborn]

Well, X-phial, I would say that Eru is inherently and irrevocably good.

Also, yes, cultures and languages vary. But the properties that make something blue make it truly blue. Yes, blue is the name we have assigned to it, but it is still blue due to its properties that make us call it blue. The names may change, but not the properties. So it doesn't matter if other words are thought up for it. It's still blue.

Also, I never said that the religous truth was found. I may believe that it has been, but I only contend that it exists at the moment and must be sought.

[The X Phial]

Well, X-phial, I would say that Eru is inherently and irrevocably good.

Eru is demonstrably not a character nor a direct engager in the war of the ring.


The names may change, but not the properties. So it doesn't matter if other words are thought up for it. It's still blue.

Blue is a concept that can be physically demonstrated and tested, we can never KNOW those things which we cannot test. Regardless, this doesn't mean they aren't there, just that we can't know them. Many of the rules imposed as religious truths and rights and wrongs are there for practical reasons. Incest is WRONG according to almost every culture, but if a brother and sister grow up alone, without a social code to tell them that it is, are they wrong for acting on their instincts? Can you judge them as evil or bad? Strong taboos are put in place for our protection in most cases, that does not make them absolute.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[Trippo The Hippo]

I think all you people are just to smart for me namely argornreborn. So I think I will just keep by original statement, and draw out of the rest of this, and just nod my head in agreement.

[DaughterofVana]

But you can't say that somebody who disagrees with you on the war on Iraq...

Oh, goodness, I *do* hope we're not talking about *that*. I was talking about Tolkien. smilies/wink.gif

Blue is a concept that can be physically demonstrated and tested, we can never KNOW those things which we cannot test.

But we really weren't talking about the color blue, or red, or green, or apples, or whatever. We were using metaphors, which is really the only way to talk about something that has no substantial, "real" (to use a cliche) value. Sure, the blue and red analogy may be faulty. But don't attack the analogy, because that's the only thing people can use to talk about things beyond our comprehension. You may not agree about my opinion that Jesus Christ was who He said He was (or the fact that I capitalize the "h" in "He" :grin : ) but He often would use metaphors to get His point across, because He was talking about things that we, as people in a 3D world with basically no knowledge of anything Above it, couldn't get otherwise. Talking about fruits and seeds and vines... he wasn't *actually* talking about plants. Do you get my meaning?

And just for the record--my red flower was once a red apple. smilies/biggrin.gif

-'Vana

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[The X Phial]

because He was talking about things that we, as people in a 3D world with basically no knowledge of anything Above it, couldn't get otherwise. Talking about fruits and seeds and vines... he wasn't *actually* talking about plants. Do you get my meaning?


I understand that, but my point is that such metaphors are, by nature, imprecise and inadequate. You hit the nail on the head when you said we can't understand the things otherwise. I think we can't truly understand them anyway. Who's to say we are getting the right meaning from parables and metaphors anyway? I have heard numerous interpretations of most, if not all, of the ones you allude to. If we translate the divine to the mundane we must lose something.

[DaughterofVana]

If we translate the divine to the mundane we must lose something.


Yet it's better than not trying to understand it at all. I didn't say that it is not understandable. It is. It is just not understandable outside of the human heart and mind. When we try and put it into words, to try and explain it, *then* that's where the trouble lies. I'm not really sure about gravity. I know that there are some complicated laws pertaining to it, but I don't need to know these laws inside and out to walk along the ground. But when I want to know more, to know the answer to the famous question "why," then I need to turn to the formulas. And, in the same way, the formulas can't really measure the force of gravity itself, only its effects on other things, so the formula in itself isn't giving me what I really need to know. But the truth of it is still there. I can feel it pulling me downwards, even though I'm not really sure why. But it's so much better than not knowing at all.

I think we can't truly understand them anyway. Who's to say we are getting the right meaning from parables and metaphors anyway? I have heard numerous interpretations of most, if not all, of the ones you allude to.

Actually, the interps of the "alluded" metaphors are all very similar, inside the sphere that it was meant to be interpreted. It is elsewhere that the "sects" who base their truth on these laws differ, and only in very, very, very superficial ways. The ultimate "truth" is still there, and the rest is just intellectual debate, and not really instrumental in the actual definition of the truth in the first place.

-'Vana

[The X Phial]

the sphere that it was meant to be interpreted.

Ahh, meant by whom? It's then that you get into the realms of belief and opinion. If you believe there is an absolute truth, fine, I can't disprove it. What I object to is the insistence that any one interpretation of that truth is the -right- one. As I was saying before, might we not all be calling the wrong fruit an apple? I'm not saying you have to believe it, just be open to the possibility that interpretation is in the eye of the interpreter

Edit: This will be my last post on this topic, not because I concede or find the argument unworthy, but because I feel we are grossly off topic.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: The X Phial ]

[DaughterofVana]

What I object to is the insistence that any one interpretation of that truth is the -right- one.

And so we come full circle. smilies/wink.gif Iarwain said it better than me, and I can't make you believe. But let me clarify what I said about inside the sphere of interpretation. When Jesus said those parables, people *knew* he was talking about things they couldn't comprehend, and therefore was using metaphors to try and explain it. He was referring to things of the spirit, not just vines and trees and fruit. That was the "sphere." I was also talking about the Christian "sphere" of interp, not the Buddhist take on it or the Moslem or the rest. Yes, there *was* a specific meaning to His parables, and therefore He put forth an "assumption" that what He was talking about was Truth. Yet just because there might be other ways to look at it doesn't mean that those ways are the right ones. "Who is to say what is right and what is wrong?" Not logic. It is there that the human mind stops and the human heart takes over. A person will philosophize themselves into circles trying to make 5D subjects into 3D. Can't be done. All you can do is to seek truth as you find it. Yes, that still means that there is a certain one, and yes, you can figure out what that is. But it can only come from within.

I'm sure I left something out, or didn't clarify something enough. But I'm sure you guys will call me on it, so I think I'll stop editing now. smilies/smile.gif

-'Vana

Now we're completely off topic. :applause!:

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

Actually, just PM me.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

And happiness will always be brought about by doing what's right. Well, I think that might be an opinion too smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif
Because I'm sure that there are times when no option is the right option. But I'm unreligious, so that might be part of my reason for saying that.
Oh, goodness, I *do* hope we're not talking about *that*. I was only using it as an example, because it's something from the situation today. I didn't want this to become a war debate smilies/smile.gif

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

Well, I do believe that doing right will bring happiness. I don't mean smiley-laughy happiness always, but a sense of peace and joy.

And certainly, doing nothing can be right. It is possible that that can be the best option sometimes.

[aragornreborn]

Blue is a concept that can be physically demonstrated and tested, we can never KNOW those things which we cannot test. Regardless, this doesn't mean they aren't there, just that we can't know them. Many of the rules imposed as religious truths and rights and wrongs are there for practical reasons. Incest is WRONG according to almost every culture, but if a brother and sister grow up alone, without a social code to tell them that it is, are they wrong for acting on their instincts? Can you judge them as evil or bad? Strong taboos are put in place for our protection in most cases, that does not make them absolute.

I agree that we can not completely know anything outside the realm of the physical world. I've said that. That's why belief in the super-natural requires and is faith. You seem to believe that the absolutes or standards that we are discussing are man-made, however - which is impossible because man has a myriad of different opinions on what standards should be. The standards must exist outside of man and culture. You're right, if standards were made by men or by cultures, then yes they wouldn't be absolute. But man can not create absolutes.

You hit the nail on the head when you said we can't understand the things otherwise. I think we can't truly understand them anyway. Who's to say we are getting the right meaning from parables and metaphors anyway? I have heard numerous interpretations of most, if not all, of the ones you allude to. If we translate the divine to the mundane we must lose something.

In a sense you are right. One can never truly KNOW the truth about religion or completely understand the divine. If we could completely understand the divine, we would be on the same level as the divine. I'm not saying that all religious truth is understandable. I'm saying the truth exists (and that the divine can communicate to the heart, soul, and mind of a person). And religious truth is understandable to an extent, otherwise it would be of no use and there might as well not be any religious truth. But as Daughter of Vana said, you may not understand gravity completely; but you know it exists, you know its effects, and you know enough about it to get along.

Ahh, meant by whom? It's then that you get into the realms of belief and opinion. If you believe there is an absolute truth, fine, I can't disprove it. What I object to is the insistence that any one interpretation of that truth is the -right- one. As I was saying before, might we not all be calling the wrong fruit an apple? I'm not saying you have to believe it, just be open to the possibility that interpretation is in the eye of the interpreter

The truth is meant to be interpreted as the creator wishes it to be interpreted – which is not in the manner of belief or opinion but fact. In order for absolutes to exist, there must be only one interpretation. Otherwise they’re not absolutes. I agree that man’s interpretation is often flawed, but the truth remains and is able to be grasped.

Now we're completely off topic. :applause!:

Well, LOL, that’s why I often tack on a little sentence or two to relate it back to the topic. Like this… This whole discussion, in my view, shows that in any world, our world and Middle Earth, there must be a set of absolute, comprehensible standards by which men can make the right decisions. I think Tolkien felt that way, too. Tolkien hated war. I hate war. I hate the death, the destruction, and sadness that war causes. But the fact is, sometimes war is necessary – certain situations require that in the name of what it right and true we intervene militarily. And the only way we can make decisions, especially when they are of such great magnitude and importance as whether to go to war or not, is if we have a set of standards for what is right and wrong – what is true and false.

[Bill Ferny]

Bill Ferny seems to be the gent who could best answer it, as the expert on things religious. Do the Orcs have free will or not?

No, I’m not the person to ask smilies/wink.gif. (For Lush: I DUNNO! smilies/biggrin.gif) There are far better Tolkienologists on this forum, and a search of “free will” and “inherent evil” will give you some better info. I do know this, however: Tolkien abandoned his notion that orcs were corrupted elves. This entails quite a bit of speculation as to if orcs had free will or if they were intrinsically evil.

This is a drastic step away from the "Is it not only a dream? Is it not all relative?" philosophy that some might use to explain ethics. In the Christian stance, good was good and then part of it became bad; not that good and bad are two different things existing independently. That is dualism, and something that I tend to believe didn't exist in ME.

Go Daughter! Go Daughter! It’s your birthday! It’s your birthday! (Ok, ok, but my eight year old son loves to say that.)

Anyway, this is the most important element for any understanding of Christian morality. Hats off to Daughter smilies/smile.gif. Another way to put it is: in as much as something exists, it is good. That which exists to the highest degree is the highest good. This notion was so thoroughly indoctrinated into to Tolkien, that he naturally included it in his mythology.

Unfortunately, this notion is not too well liked by modernists because it applies a hierarchy of being, not only to the objective world, but also to the subjective world of ideas. For many people any hierarchy is a despotism. Well, I can handle it, because I definitely know I’m not God… others don’t feel that way. (No, that’s not a jab at Psych or Lit professors… well, maybe it is. smilies/wink.gif )

aragornreborn… in response to your response to my response (huh?)… grrrr, in response to your May 7, 9:58am post. First of all, I do not question an objective reality beyond the sensing, knowing person. Believe me, I’m as far from a relativist as one can get. What I was attempting to briefly describe in a short space was that human knowledge is a collective affair.

Take, for example, Saint Thomas Aquinas. As much as I would like to say that Saint Thomas Aquinas is the height of all metaphysical and theological knowledge, I can not. He, like all other philosophers and theologians, is simply a single step in our collective knowledge (albeit a pretty massive step!). There are inconsistencies and holes in Saint Thomas’ metaphysics that has been filled by people such Heideger, Fichte and Lonergan. There is a lack of understanding in Saint Thomas' doctrinal theology that has been illuminated by modern biblical exegesis and patristics, and people like Adrian Nichols and Rodger Charles. There are holes in Saint Thomas’ moral theology that has been filled by people such as Josef Pieper and Romanus Cessario.

We continue along a linear path, ever deepening our knowledge of the diverse arts. Our knowledge of the objective world is constantly expanding (sometimes shrinking), and this is especially true of the human person and God. The use of the word “comprehending” in reference to our knowledge of God is inaccurate. There is no way to comprehend God, because He is, by His nature as infinite, incomprehensible. One can not know all there is to know about God. In fact, the more you know about God, the more you realize how little you know about God. However, one can apprehend God: know that He is, know those philosophical principles (which by their very definition are incomprehensible) and revealed truths (which by their own admission can only be understood in community) about Him, and all that that entails. Apprehending God is no easy task, taking into consideration the long history of doctrinal development.

The greatest contribution to Thomistic realism (and by consequence, modern Catholic moral theology) were the philosophies of Heideger, Fichte and Schelling. The human person, with his immaterial rational soul, is not comprehensible, but the Dasein, the person, was, like God, an ever knowable object (though certainly not infinite, but still not within the realm of utter knowability). Created reality, with its inter-connectedness through time and space, a fifth and sixth dimension if you will, was also an ever knowable object. Thus, all our knowledge about God, His creation and ourselves, is ever expandable, ever growing, always adventure.

Does this negate everything we know right now? Of course, not. We can apprehend enough of all things in order to make right judgements. Those hierarchies do exist, and always have. However, it does entail a great responsibility on the human race to ever delve the realms of our whole lives, to give fair hearing to those who disagree with the way we look at the world (including those who are just plain wrong, like Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Voltaire, Camus, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Schopenhaur, Gibbon, Whitehead… ok, so I’m a little opinionated… because even those clods had moments of insight), and to attempt to discover objective truth as a community. There’s no excuse not to act on what we know; there’s no excuse to ignore what we know; but we must always have the humility to admit there’s always something we do not know.

Well, it’s a school night… Maybe I’ll try to make this a bit more Tolkien relevant latter.

[aragornreborn]

There is no way to comprehend God, because He is, by His nature as infinite, incomprehensible. One can not know all there is to know about God. In fact, the more you know about God, the more you realize how little you know about God. However, one can apprehend God: know that He is, know those philosophical principles (which by their very definition are incomprehensible) and revealed truths (which by their own admission can only be understood in community) about Him, and all that that entails. Apprehending God is no easy task, taking into consideration the long history of doctrinal development.


I do believe we agree. And about most everything else, as well. I believe. Although I would be careful how much we associate good with bad. I believe that bad is a rebellion from good and thus somewhat on the same plane. But if you were saying that you believe bad is just less good, then I disagree. Sorry, it's been a long day and it's just started...

[Nyneve]

But what if there is no point? What if we are all only here because electricity zapped a pool of water and created proteins that got together and formed cells. Then the cells formrd organisms? There could be no point to anything and everything just is what it is! It could be true and if you want to believe you can. Maybe when we die we just decay and pass out of knowledge. Frankly, I don't believe it is true, but it is another point of view.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I'm not sure what I believe, but, depressing as it is, that's what I'm inclined to. which is impossible because man has a myriad of different opinions on what standards should be. That's the point. It is possible. I think people should live by their own standards in the parts of their lives not interacting with others. When together, there should be a code of rules. By the way, are we straying from the topic a bit?

~Menlelien

[aragornreborn]

You're right. There might not be a point to life. But if that's true, not only is life pointless giving people no reason to live, but also I can do whatever I want because I'm just lightning-struck mud. And that means ANYTHING. And so can everyone else. We're all just mud, it doesn't matter.

As to everyone having their own standards, that's a very nice thought. But who decides what actions affect or don't affect others? Most of our actions do affect others in various ways. And who decides what the common moral-interaction code is? As we've said, man can not agree on anything as far as standards go. Which is why it makes more sense if there is a code beyond man. Then, that only requires one to accept it. Not to think of it for himself or to agree with everyone else (and by the way, there are a lot of sick people out there, so I don't know if you want their input. Then you get into the whole, "well whose opinion do we listen to?"). Also, I know you have good intentions with promoting different standards. Hey, it'll stop a lot of arguing over whose standards are right! But it also starts you down the slippery slope. If you make standards relative from person to person, you eventually get to thieves, murderers, and everyone else. I'm not saying everyone who does have their own set of standards is any of those things, by any means. No no no. Very few are, in fact. But, that is where relative morals can lead to.

Not only is relativism dangerous and confusing, but its also depressing like you said. If you resign yourself to a pointless life, then your life will be pointless. And that doesn't have to happen. You can believe that there is a point and you can try to find the point.

The characters in Middle Earth did not believe that life was pointless. People who believe that don't fight for good and for freedom. They look out for number one. (So, I don't think any of you truly believe life is pointless) If the elves believed life was pointless, they all would have headed off to the undying lands at the first sign of trouble. If men thought life was pointless, they would have just indulged themselves in physical pleasures - living it up while they could. But those are not the characters we find in Lord of the Rings. We find Aragorn - a man exiled and almost mocked, fighting to defend the freedom of Middle Earth and to honor his ancestors. We have Gimli - who unlike many of his fellow dwarves had an interest in the safety of Middle Earth and was willing to be even with an elf to defend his world. And so on. Tolkien's characters did believe in a purpose and a standard.

Phew. Good night. It's late. I apologize for anything that doesn't make sense.

[ May 09, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Ah, posting in the middle of the night again... smilies/wink.gif You're right. There might not be a point to life. But if that's true, not only is life pointless giving people no reason to live, but also I can do whatever I want because I'm just lightning-struck mud. And that means ANYTHING. And so can everyone else. We're all just mud, it doesn't matter. That's not quite what I said. I may be lightning struck mud, but I have no right to be affecting the lives of other lightning struck muds in a way that they don't like. I don't mean that if you think it's good to murder, go ahead! I just meant that people have to work out their own moral standards because the law and whoever you believe in will generally not be enough to keep the whole world in check.

~Menelien

Good night to you guys. Insomnia sucks.

[Bill Ferny]

I think people should live by their own standards in the parts of their lives not interacting with others.

There’s no such part. All reality is interconnected.

What’s all this lightning struck mud stuff? If that’s really how you see yourself, then you must have a really low opinion of everyone else. Sounds a bit like what Wormtongue wanted King Théoden to think of himself.

I just meant that people have to work out their own moral standards because the law and whoever you believe in will generally not be enough to keep the whole world in check.

So what you are saying is that we should lock our doors, and keep a fearful watch on the night, keep our mouths shut, and not meddle in the affairs of others no matter what they do. The world matters not as long as my own house is in order. Nothing should matter to me except those standards that I make for myself on my little island, safely hidden away beyond the reach of others. Well, God help my neighbors, because I certainly won’t.

That wasn’t intended as a personal attack against you, Menelien, so don’t take it that way. It’s merely a demonstration of what kind of world we create for ourselves with that kind of thinking.

It sounds harsh to impose a standard of living on other people, but the opposite is far less attractive when you really think about it. This issue is the essence of book III, chapter 6 of The Two Towers; it’s about moving beyond one’s selfish, private and petty concerns to do what is right in a dangerous world. It means moving beyond oneself to help those suffering, to bring justice to the world, and, yes, sometimes, even to go to war. Above all it means risking everything about yourself to give yourself to your neighbor, and the first thing that should be sacrificed should be those personal moral standards that we neatly create behind closed doors without others to meddle in how we see ourselves and the world we live in. That takes courage and strength. The easy path, the path of the coward and weakling, the path of Wormtongue’s councils, is to stay at home, locked up, pleased with our petty personal standards and illusions.

”Your fingers would remember their old strength better, if they grasped a sword-hilt,” said Gandalf.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

There’s no such part. All reality is interconnected. I mean things that only affect you. Small things. I mean, who else will it affect if you you eat a lot and don't get on a diet? Only you. What’s all this lightning struck mud stuff? If that’s really how you see yourself, then you must have a really low opinion of everyone else. Sounds a bit like what Wormtongue wanted King Théoden to think of himself.
I didn't mean that literally, it was an exageation. It came from something Nyneve said: But what if there is no point? What if we are all only here because electricity zapped a pool of water and created proteins that got together and formed cells. Then the cells formrd organisms? There could be no point to anything and everything just is what it is! It could be true and if you want to believe you can. Maybe when we die we just decay and pass out of knowledge. Frankly, I don't believe it is true, but it is another point of view. I don't lieterally think I'm a piece of lightning zapped mud. That would be a bit depressing. Bill Ferny- I'm not even going to put up the rest of the quotes. You're interpreting everything I say in a rather scary way smilies/eek.gif smilies/wink.gif I certainly didn't mean not to interfere with other peoples' lives at all. I meant on the level of moral standards, well. you would say that murdering somebody would rather interfere with their lives? What I meant was more along the lines of that.

~Menelien

[Glofin]

I have been reading this thread and I have found things that I agree and disagree with.


First of all, I am no warmonger and desire peace. And no offence to anyone but... I have read the Orcs are just people and that they have feelings, and yes they have feelings, like the time when after the sack of Norgothround when an attempt to rescue the prisoners that the Orcs where taking to Angbad, not only did they most cruelly KILL ALL the prisoners but to the kings daughter they pined her to a tree with a spear. Or during the sack of Gondolin while the Elves valiantly tried to defend them selves the Orcs slaughtered the men women a children with no pity and mercy. And those that lived whished they had been slain for they were doomed for a life of slavery in the dark dungeons of Angbad.

Orcs where made by Morgoth in the first age. And all of Morgoths hate he put into them. Orcs are creatures of hate and malice. They have no pity for those they kill, the only joy they can conceive of is that of hurting others.

I believe that war is a horrible thing, but though we must always strive for peace, there will come a time when war and killing will happen.

I cannot stand people who are mean and wish to hurt others; I try to bring joy to all that I am around. But I draw the line when someone is trying to do harm to others.

I hope that I don’t sound to serious, or that I offend anyone.

Namarie

[Nyneve]

I mean there are a lot of opinions about good and evil and we will never know what is true but I never said mud.
i was refering to an experiment done by a scientist. I am a Catholic and hold true to Catholic beliefs.
I am not odd and I am entitled to my own opinion and you would not be a made of mud but made from electricity and minerals if you believe that scientist.

[ May 10, 2003: Message edited by: Nyneve ]

[aragornreborn]

Nyneve, I certainly never meant to say you are odd. And I don't think anyone else meant too, either. Yes, there are many opinions on good and evil. All I'm saying, however, is that there is one right one. However exclusive and and politically incorrect that may sound, I believe it is true.

Galadriel of the Olden, I know Bill (By the way, Bill, I haven't used fruit in my last few posts!) seemed like he was taking your philosophy to dangerous and scary levels. But what he is saying is right. Moralistic relativism can lead to all those things no matter how innocent or admirable it may start out. It's not like us absolutists want to force our standards on anyone. That's because they're not our standards. If they were standards created by man, then yes, I'd agree with you. I have no right to force my personal standards on you. But, if these standards are beyond man, which they must be to be absolute standards, than they are not mine at all. They are the truth. And there is nothing wrong with trying to tell someone the truth. It's wrong if you don't.

I just meant that people have to work out their own moral standards because the law and whoever you believe in will generally not be enough to keep the whole world in check.

But that's what will happen if you let people work out their own moral code. Because your own moral code is actually no moral code. You change it to fit your situations. After all, it's yours. You can change it if you think you need to (it might be something little like eating another brownie or it could be something worse). You're right, the whole world is not being kept in check. But that's not because there is no standard and that's not because the standard is flawed. It's because people aren't willing to accept or find the standard. The solution isn't to ignore the standard and just lower it so the standard is just whatever people want it to be. That leads to anarchy and complete chaos. The solution is to find the standard, accept it, believe it, and follow it.

[Bill Ferny]

You're interpreting everything I say in a rather scary way

Hmm. Well help me out then. I thought you were saying that, basically, morality is relative.

I mean, who else will it affect if you you eat a lot and don't get on a diet? Only you.

Except, of course, for the millions of people who continue to pay for the affects of an overweight and out of shape society. If I died of a heart attack today because of my gluttony, I know of at least five other people and a cat that would be directly affected because of such “a little” thing like a bad diet.

Metaphysically speaking, all our actions either improve or corrupt reality, no matter if it’s a dirty little secret that nobody knows about, or a casual, friendly smile to a stranger. That’s a pretty big responsibility. I see my sins, no matter how small or private, as corrupting the world, adding to the pain and suffering and despair, not just of me, but of everyone with which I share this earth. We have this picture of ourselves as objects set in front of the world, like the world is a photographer’s backdrop. The truth of the matter is we are integral parts of that world; in fact, the human person is the apex and microcosm of all creation. It is our actions, big and small, that shape the world.

I certainly didn't mean not to interfere with other peoples' lives at all. I meant on the level of moral standards

It is on this level that all law interferes with other people’s lives, or at least ethics.

Nyneve,

First of all, I apologize for you being called odd (though I don’t remember where). Such a criticism should only be reserved for me. My question regarding lightning struck mud was not to the validity of the theory, but as to its use in the above discussion. The bible tells us that we were made from dust, and to dust we will return, so I guess your scientist isn’t too far from the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, how we were created has no bearing what-so-ever on what we are, our purpose in creation, or the nature of good and evil.

Dwelling on the lowliness of the human person can be a good exercise in humility and lend insight into our lives, but when it negates the inherent dignity of the human person, it commits a grave error.

I mean there are a lot of opinions about good and evil and we will never no what is true

I disagree. Those hierarchies of being do exist in an objective reality, and the human person has the power to know them (the Thomistic self-evident proposition, without which all pursuit of knowledge and all human endeavor would be pointless).

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I am not odd and I am entitled to my own opinion and you would not be a made of mud but made from electricity and minerals if you believe that scientist. What scientist???
Hmm. Well help me out then. I thought you were saying that, basically, morality is relative.

Not quite. I was just saying that it isn't always totally set in stone, not that you can just bend it how you like it, never mind everything else.

~Menelien

[Nyneve]

I said I am not odd because my friend said I was when she read this. I am not blaming any of you about that! and I do believe there is a point to life, though I do not know what it is.
*Luv ya!*

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Alright, yes, that was puzzling me for a bit. Anyhow, are there any biographies of Tolkien that go into detail about his life at war? The ones I've seen basically just say that it was terrible, no detail...

~Menelien

[aragornreborn]

Well Menelien,

I haven't heard of any biographies of Tolkien's personal, specific, view of war or killing, but I would like to comment about this...

Not quite. I was just saying that [morality] isn't always totally set in stone, not that you can just bend it how you like it, never mind everything else.

Where do you draw the line then? And how do you know when to draw the line? Is that a standard? If so where did it come from? Or is that also a personal decision?

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I think that a part of being a responsible human is knowing where to draw the line. That comes to most people at a certain point. Of course, not all. The ones that it doesn’t come to are the ones that become criminals. And criminals- well, that’s what law is for.

~Menelien

[Nyneve]

aragornreborn, you inspired a poem! Thanks!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!!
Where do you draw the line between enthusiasm and exhilaration, hating and loathing, loving and adoration? Is there a difference? Yes. A difference as great as pebble and mountain and a difference as small as one dead flower inn a field of live blossoms. But are not the pebble and mountain made from the same earth and created by the same God? Does not one dead and whithered bloom soil the beauty of the living field and bring pity to all those who glance its way. They are the same where it counts. The only difference is the way and feel of the word rolling from the tongue.

[aragornreborn]

Well, gee, if only I could inspire myself more like that. Oh well. That was very nice, Nyneve. Glad I could be of some use! smilies/wink.gif

Perhaps I will inspire more poems. I do feel rather poetic at times. Oh dear. You've got me thinking about it now! smilies/tongue.gif If my posts start rhyming or soundinng eloquent - it's all Nyneve's fault!

Anyway, Menelien, the problem with relying on personal responsiblity with knowing where to draw the line is that we are, as humans, imperfect creatures. We can never keep ourselves perfect - even to our own standards. So, we never completely are able to draw a line for ourselves. Also, what defines a criminal? To what extent does the law takeover? And what does the law regulate? If being a criminal is doing wrong, then we are all criminals to some extent.

There is a spiritual law and a physical law. The spiritual law was made beyond man. It dictates how man should live in order to lead a productive, successful life. Without it, men can not live responsibly. We also have a physical law which is what you are talking about - laws made by man to keep man in order. Physical laws must be based on a standard. In fact, they are a shadow of the spiritual law (standard). They mirror the spiritual law as much as is possible and as much as those who submit to the law allow. But the physical law is neither capable of keeping man completely in check in all areas nor even in the areas it can govern. The most effective crime prevention comes from within the person himself. And again, what is the definition of criminal? All criminals began by doing "little" things. If we allow "little" things to be a matter of personal judgment, it will escalate to "bigger" things. Just as we expect everyone to accept the physical law, we must accept the more perfect spiritual law in order to live in a good society. Ignoring parts of the standard or leaving parts of the standard open for debate will result in chaos and evil.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Anyway, Menelien, the problem with relying on personal responsiblity with knowing where to draw the line is that we are, as humans, imperfect creatures. We can never keep ourselves perfect - even to our own standards. So, we never completely are able to draw a line for ourselves. Also, what defines a criminal? To what extent does the law takeover? And what does the law regulate? If being a criminal is doing wrong, then we are all criminals to some extent.
Exactly. The point of not being perfect is striving to become better. We may never become perfect, but the trying in itself is worth that. The fact that you've made yourself better is much better, I think, than being that good in the first place. And, of course, to some extent, we are all criminals. But only at a certain point the law takes over. Before that point, we need to restrain ourselves, and help others do this too. Even if you are religious, you know that God may set rules, but does not reinforce them. Of course, there's Hell and all, but not during your life. If you're not religious, it's even harder, because there's no Hell or any sort of punishment ahead for you. There is a spiritual law and a physical law. The spiritual law was made beyond man. It dictates how man should live in order to lead a productive, successful life. Without it, men can not live responsibly. Wouldn't you say that there were and are many wonderful men and women in the world, leading totally responsible, helpful, good lives, who are not religious? I think that spiritual law exists, except that I would put it more as menatl law, because I personally don't believe that there is a source of good and a source of evil outside of us. I believe that a generally good person may be good because they made their own rules or because God made their rules for them. As long as they follow them, they can be good people. Ignoring parts of the standard or leaving parts of the standard open for debate will result in chaos and evil.
That is what I don't agree with. I don't think that they should be, as you put it, "open for debate" in the literal sense, I just think that a man or woman should be able to have a choice. If they choose badly, of course it's a loss, of course that person's life is now not as good as it could be, but the matter of choice is there. I don't think of it as a good idea to follow certain ideals blindly, no matter what happens.

~Menelien

[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: GaladrieloftheOlden ]

[DaughterofVana]

Wouldn't you say that there were and are many wonderful men and women in the world, leading totally responsible, helpful, good lives, who are not religious?

Ooooh yeah. Frodo had no knowledge of Elbereth and the like (outside of elf-songs), yet he was still responsible, helpful, and self-sacrificing in his path. (Wow, look at me, I'm relating it back to the book.... smilies/biggrin.gif ) The thing is... where did he get the idea that this was "good" behavior? How did he get the definition of "good"? That definition, like aragornreborn said, came from outside the grasp of man ("beyond man").

I believe that a generally good person may be good because they made their own rules...

Ah. But are those rules that the person made for himself/herself "good"? If the rules are not towards the manmade viewpoint of "good" (which reflects the spiritual "good" as aragornreborn said), then are they really "good" in themselves?

... or because God made their rules for them. As long as they follow them, they can be good people.

But where did this definition of "good" come from? Everything is well and good in this viewpoint, until it comes to this.

Being "religious" does not make a person good in itself. Many, many atrocities in the name of religion (Christian and otherwise) is to thank for that. Perversion of a good thing--"evil"--is where those people crossed the line from being actually working *for* their respective Gods and wandered into the realm of corruption, instead working for themselves and their own political/social viewpoints. That should be diffirenciated. And, in the same spirit, people who are "good" because it makes them feel good and because they are viewed in a better light by their peers is different than a person who does good because it *is* good. Sure, it results in the same thing, but the intentions behind it are different.

I'm sorry. I'm selling you guys and myself short because I have to stop here. Please forgive me and my stupid time constraints and limited computer access. smilies/smile.gif Hopefully someone else will pick up the slack.

-'Vana

[Bill Ferny]

Once again Daughter hits the nail on the head! Once again, hats off to an excellent and provocative post. smilies/wink.gif It's all in the definition! Like on many other threads, what seems to be the object of the intellectual struggle is finding a definition of “good”.

Good is the same thing as being or existence, but approached from the perspective of desire and will. We humans desire stuff. Why? Because we naturally desire to become more; we will our own perfection. Good behavior, then, is what helps us to achieve our perfection. Bad behavior, on the other hand, is what stops us from achieving our perfection.

Sounds simple, ey? Well, we aren’t that lucky. First of all, what is human perfection? Secondly, the fact that makes ethics such a difficult subject, is that all people act according to a perceived good. Even sadists and hedonists and satanists are acting to achieve what they perceive as good. What sets ethical behavior apart from unethical behavior hinges on what we conclude is our perfection, or final cause. If human beings are simply animals seeking physical pleasure, then the hedonists are the people acting ethically. If human perfection resides in the survival of the fittest and the domination of the strongest, then the sadists are the ones acting ethically. If human perfection is an eternity of pain and suffering, then the satanists are the ones acting ethically.

Fortunately, human beings are none of these. We are rational animals. Reason, the ability to know and will that which is a priori and a posteriori to the self (transcendence of the human intellect) indicates that our perfection is to know and will not just our own perfection, but to know and will the highest of all perfections beyond ourselves, being qua being, that whose existence is its essence. There are greater and lesser goods, and the highest good (being qua being). If lesser goods (such as physical pleasure, survival or dominance) leads to greater goods, and these greater goods in turn lead to the highest good (being qua being), then one is acting ethically. Those who mistake lesser or greater goods for the highest good (being qua being) are acting unethically. In fact, they are corrupting these very goods that exist for no other purpose than to lead the human person to the highest good (being qua being).

While this may sound religious in tone, remember it was the pagan Greeks who first conceived this philosophical anthropology, not Christians or Muslims. Thus, it is possible for all people, no matter their religion or lack thereof, to strive for the highest good (being qua being). Those of us who are religious are just the lucky ones who have been given the answers to the test (like, being qua being = The One True God). While the pursuit of the good is not something belonging solely to those of a religious bent, the vast majority of those who have no religion make the mistake of ending their pursuit of good with greater goods. Achieving greater goods, like peace, love of neighbor or a life of virtue, no matter how lofty or noble they may be, are really pointless in and of themselves. Their very existence is dependent on that which they indicate, that which gives them meaning and significance, the only thing that can satisfy the human need to know and will: being qua being. For human beings to achieve anything less leads only to dissatisfaction and never quenchable thirst.

How can Frodo, and anyone else in Middle Earth, act ethically? First of all, Tolkien wrote it that way. However, at the root of his assumed anthropology of hobbits, men and elves, Tolkien accepts unconsciously this definition of good and all that it entails.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Wow, I've been out for a while, and have missed some heavy stuff. But Kudos to all on this discussion (while wildly off topic) it's been an excellent read and very thought provoking.

As for a thought of my own. Menelien has a point, and it is a good one, and I think all of you have been rather harsh on her. I'm no relativist, though far from a fundamentalist, but I am able (I think) to see where she's going with it.
That (Ignoring parts of the standard or leaving parts of the standard open for debate will result in chaos and evil) is what I don't agree with. I don't think that they should be, as you put it, "open for debate" in the literal sense, I just think that a man or woman should be able to have a choice. If they choose badly, of course it's a loss, of course that person's life is now not as good as it could be, but the matter of choice is there.
The discussion that never happened about people's opinions being right or wrong as relates to sticky situations (ie, the war in Iraq- though let's not get into that smilies/wink.gif) was the beginning of all this discussion on moral relativism and it's consequences/implications. There are grey areas, in which it is difficult to know the "moral law" (or as Menelien put it the mental law- of which all people seem to have at least elementary knowledge). In those situations we do have to leave it to the conscience of the individual. I don't think that anywhere Menelien was advocating a moral anarchy of sorts smilies/wink.gif.

But while our actions may not be measurable by human standards, and thus left open to our own interpretation. I maintain that there is still a standard by which they are measured.

Here: I don't think of it as a good idea to follow certain ideals blindly, no matter what happens. is where I want to clarify. Following blindly is silly, following tested standards with justification for doing so is only rational. I should hope we all do.

But, in the end, while your choice of standard is genuinely yours, there are bad standards available to be chosen. If I buy an improperly made ruler, I'm not going to measure inches right, no matter how determined I may be to continue using that ruler. And because I think it's measuring standard inches doesn't mean it is. (or centimeters or what have you)

Sophia

[aragornreborn]

Woah, gee. Gone for a few days and look what happens… I can’t really catch up with everything that has been said (All of us should aspire to post like Estelyn Telcontar who, I’ve noticed, always manages to say exactly what she means in one paragraph. And yes, I’m talking to myself here). Also, even I am having a hard time getting this back on topic. So, I think this will be my last off-topic post out of respect for the rules here.

First, I never meant to attack Menelien, personally. And I don’t think she’s some evil being who supports moral anarchy. :P

What I contend is that there is a divine standard of right and wrong – and only one. And that that standard is given to us by God to show us how we should live. Not because He wants to ruin our fun or put limitations on us, but because He knows what is right and what is beneficial. He tells us not to lie because lying ruins relationships, for example. I also believe that the divine standard was given to us to show us our need for salvation. As you said yourself, Menelien, we aren’t perfect. And perfection is the goal. If we are not perfect, we are imperfect which clearly can not be the way that we are meant to live. God tells us that Himself. He says that “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (perfection).” He also tells us that we can’t save ourselves. “For the payment of sin (imperfection) is death.” But it isn’t hopeless. God adds that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Jesus died for us all. He took the punishment for us that if we believe in Him, God will give us eternal life and make us perfect. Not in this life. Believe me, I’m not saying that Christians are perfect by a long shot. But God promises us that He will give us life after death and that he will make us holy (perfect) if we believe in Him ("And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life."). In this life, God promises to give those who believe in Him both a specific purpose and the power to do what’s right. That doesn’t mean Christians will always do what’s right. But God does promise that He will help us.

Having said that, I know the words intolerant, religious fanatic are being muttered (or will be muttered) or that people are thinking, “Fine, you have your religion, and I’ll have mine.” In today’s society, there is a misconception about religion. People seem to think that religion was made by man. And indeed, religion is man’s attempt to communicate with God. People also seem to think that all religions are acceptable and right for the people who believe in them. That can not be true. There can not be more than one standard or truth or else they’d conflict. There’s only room for one - which makes sense. There can not be more than one all-mighty Creator. And you can’t have more than one set of absolutes. It doesn’t work. Also, man can not create God. Or else it isn’t God. People sense the supernatural, the existence of God, but they explain it in various ways. They “create” God. Hell isn’t a reality for some people and a non-reality for others. It either exists or it doesn’t. But man can not say, “all right, Hell exists for you but not for you.” Man does not have control over that. And religion is man’s attempt to have control over the supernatural which is, by nature, impossible. So, instead of religion, we must have faith. Instead of “creating” the impossible - creating God, heaven, and the supernatural – we must accept God, heaven, hell, and the supernatural. We must accept and believe in God and obey Him.

There. That’s what I believe. That’s why I think man can make moral decisions about such things as war and killing – because there is a standard and because there is a living, active God who cares about the world and the people in it.

[ May 17, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I have two things to answer just now: a. the last paragraph you wrote on religion- I don't quite agree with it, but I don't want to argue with you on that because I realize that there are more opinions than just "mine and the wrong one smilies/wink.gif. First, I never meant to attack Menelien, personally. And I don’t think she’s some evil being who supports moral anarchy. :P

What I contend is that there is a divine standard of right and wrong – and only one.
First paragraph- why, I never would have thought smilies/wink.gif Second one- note the word 'divine'. That adds a religious meaning to your statement, and one with which I don't quite agree simply because it doesn't allow room for opinion. Why are we debating at all, then, if there is onlt one way to live? (I realize that I am contradicting myself, as I said that I wouldn't argue with anything religious, because of many opinions, but I couldn't help myself on that one.)

~Menelien

[Niluial]

I am sure war influenced Tokliens writing! Although I believe that Tolkien was not a great fan of war!
We think the enemy is evil, and usually they think we are, which leads to both sides claiming to be fighting evil while, in a way, both sides are evil. It is discombobulating and I think the reason as to why it seems so complicated is because there are no Evil or Good unless one uses evil to describe yourself and good to describe the opposing force. It is all an issue of views and perspective and runs too deep to comprehend until one has died. Maybe that is what Tolkien is trying to say. Everyone wants to know answers toimpossible questions. Killing is cruel in some oppinions and fair in another. Like in the Bible. Followers of God fight wars sometimes in the name of God, but is not one of the commandments "though shall not kill?" God tests good people's faith with bad expereinces and horror and and seems not to punish the bad. But we know God is right and all will be just. Tolkien was very religious. Maybe he is trying to reflect these mysteries?
This is my favourite reply in the whole thing! It makes so much sense, yet it doesn’t make sense at all. Well that’s my opinion! I can read this reply over and over again!

[Guinevere]

Galadriel of the Olden wrote:
Are there any biographies of Tolkien that go into detail about his life at war?
Well, no, but we do have his letters! Not from WW I, but all the letters he sent during WW II to his son Christopher.

If you want to know more of Tolkien's thoughts and opinions, I can strongly recommend "The letters of JRR Tolkien" !(See also the thread "Gems from the letters" in "Books"

Here an example, from letter #64, written 1944
The utter stupid waste of war, not only material but moral and spiritual, is so staggering to those who have to endure it. And always was (despite of the poets) , and always will be (despite the propagandists) - not of course that it has not is and will be necessary to face it in an evil world.
But so short is human memory and so evanescent are its generations that in only about 30 years there will be few or no people with that direct experience which alone goes really to the heart. The burnt hand teaches most about fire.
I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present (.........)
And the product of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historical version is, of course , not the only one. All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects". No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitatis. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success- in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general, and so it is in our own lives.

Something else about war, which impressed me, is Meneldur's speech in "Aldarion and Erendis " (U.T.)

To prepare or to let be?
To prepare for war, which is yet only guessed: train craftsmen and tillers in the midst of peace for bloodspilling and battle: put iron in the hands of greedy captains who will love only conquest, and count the slain as their glory? Will they say to Eru: "At least your enemies were amongst them" ?
Or to fold hands, while friends die unjustly: let men live in blind peace, until the ravisher is at the gate? What then will they do: match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee, leaving the cries of women behind them? Will they say to Eru: "At least I spilled no blood" ?
When either way may lead to evil, of what worth is choice?

[DaughterofVana]

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Part One: In which Vana diverges further from the topic:
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Why are we debating at all, then, if there is only one way to live?

Can't help myself on this one, either. smilies/wink.gif Look at what Bill Ferny had to say again:

Thus, it is possible for all people, no matter their religion or lack thereof, to strive for the highest good (being qua being). Those of us who are religious are just the lucky ones who have been given the answers to the test (like, being qua being = The One True God). While the pursuit of the good is not something belonging solely to those of a religious bent, the vast majority of those who have no religion make the mistake of ending their pursuit of good with greater goods. Achieving greater goods, like peace, love of neighbor or a life of virtue, no matter how lofty or noble they may be, are really pointless in and of themselves. Their very existence is dependent on that which they indicate, that which gives them meaning and significance, the only thing that can satisfy the human need to know and will: being qua being. For human beings to achieve anything less leads only to dissatisfaction and never quenchable thirst.

People can have all sorts of opinions about the persuit of good. But it is only within the structure of religion that this "good" is ever attained (Achieving greater goods: peace, love of neighbor or a life of virtue). That's what I meant about "what is your definition of good?" Is there one that stands on its own, without the influence of opinion or circumstance, and without resorting to religious means? A person can solve this by trying to be entirely, completely, and utterly good, or trying to find a concrete, justified, supported example of another human person who was entirely and utterly good, *outside* of the scope of religion. "Concrete and justified and supported" being key terms here. smilies/wink.gif If it is possible, then someone must have done it by now, since the human race has been around for so long. If not... well, I guess the answer lies elsewhere.

While this may sound religious in tone, remember it was the pagan Greeks who first conceived this philosophical anthropology, not Christians or Muslims.

Right-o. I agree with this completely. Truth can occur in non-religious instances, but it stems from a religious source. Eh, you may not agree with me. That's wonderful, because that's the source of intelligent debate. Like someone said to me once, isn't it great when the love of one man's books can bring together such diverse people? And such intelligent debating? smilies/wink.gif

Right. Last off-topic post for me. But please, please, *please*, if anyone else wants to talk about it further, please PM me. I live for this sort of stuff.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Part Two: in which Vana gets back on track:
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Bravo, Guinevere and Niluial! On-topic posts!

Tolkien:

All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success- in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general, and so it is in our own lives.


I hear that. It may seem like it is a foolish escapade, trying to find just a spark or flicker of good in a barren blackness of war and terror. Perhaps it is. But the effort of it is how humanity endures. The "good" may seem silly and trivial, but it starves off despair. And sometimes that's all we can do.


As a person who has never been to war (though her country has been to war thousands of times, with questionable motives), she can only rely on the knowledge of others--and, as Tolkien said, direct experience is really where the knowledge lies. Regardless, my father told me once why he felt his life was in such shambles when he was young. He went to Vietnam--voluntarily--and came back a broken man. His life before and after that was filled with drugs and darkness. But he said that he endured such hardship and darkness to, well, find Mom and have me. And through us his life became whole again. Without that darkness in the beginning, he would have been unable to see the light of his future for what it really was--light. A reward for sticking in there. And for not giving in.

Sappy, yes. But life often is. And sometimes that's the only choice.

-'Vana

[Morgoth the Great]

there is a lot to support the fact that Tolkiens writings were based a lot on killing, as most of the people he cared about or loved were killed prematurely(eg WW1)

[HerenIstarion]

I have no time nor capacity to give you my opinions of the whole affair discussed above (said opinions may prove boring after all), but something drew my attention, which I'm reluctant to leave without notice:


by Bill Ferny

While that conversation reveals that orcs have distinct personalities, you would be hard pressed to prove any virtue resided in their psyches

And though I risk leading this thread in quite opposite direction, I'm nevertheless is willing to pour a little light on the subject

some disclaimer first:

Though it is never backed up by textual evidence I personally believe Shagrat and Gorbag (and Grishnakh as well, to be honest)to be not ordinary 'beast-orks' but degraded or lesser Umaiar (cf this (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.php?))

Reasons for such a belief being quite plain:

Both are in command of quite important military posts Both talk about "good old times" as if remembering those Both recognize and follow up some kind of moral code

the last statement being most important for me in this case

The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow – just left him lying: <font color="red">regular elvish trick

That is Gorbag speaking to Shagrat. Without talking it over both agree that leaving companion on the road is a bad thing, and though they both mockingly refer to 'Ufthak' who is found alive in Shelob's lair and abandoned, the 'trick' is ascribed to elves.

(btw, one may further speculate that Ufthak may be an ordinary beast ork, not Umaia, so is not considered as equal and worth helping}

So the point which I were driving at may be stated thus: creature recognising moral code, though not living up to it, can not be considered lost completely and can not be considered as part of mere automata either And Shagrat along with Gorbag, to my eye, are just such creatures

Sauron would not evaluate leaving wounded comrade on the road as bad thing, for him it would have been merely practical

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I have found the time to pick some bones alongside the whole of this fascinating thread, so I will. And though my first bone contradicts to some extent my previous post, I hold it to be true:

by MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

They have feelings too. Who knows, they might even have an orc family back in Mordor and his orc son might be asking the orc mommy where daddy is. They might not be defending their country, but they are forced to fight, whether they want to or not. It relly is sad if you think about it

there were no such thing, for, though I was not able to find direct quote right away, it runs somehow “orks hate even their own kind”. no kiddies asking for daddies. Besides, most bulk of orks (exceptions of abovementioned Shagrat and Gorgab, as well as Grishnakh and Ugluk (my belief) and Boldog of the FA (stated by JRRT) does just underline the general rule:

Orks are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar
HoME X

And beasts completely under evil dominion of Morgoth and Sauron. So when in Tolkien battles good chaps kill bad chaps, what is said is what is meant.

But there are cases, where, though it is not stated, it is implied that enemy opposing you though is evil, is not a beast but moral being. Than behavior of “good chaps” differs from mere slaughter which is fit for mere beast orks. Why, do you think, Eomer dismounts to honor Ugluk with one to one combat on foot? Is not it simpler way to shoot them all from the horseback? Reason is that it is believed orks of new kind are interbred with man, so (I believe Tolkien had woven it into his story) deserve fair play. And never in the story orks of that kind are merely slaughtered. Shagrat and Gorbag fight one another, for which no man of the west is to blame, Ugluk is slain in fair fight where he has equal chances to destroy Eomer, Grishnakh, on could argue, is killed by fate.

Yet in general, when Men of the West deal with mere beast orks, there are no negotiations. There is no logic to talk to killer robot, one tries to destroy it or be slain.

Yet men under Sauron’s sway are different. If you consider description of any battle in ME, men of the opposite side are always rather taken captive than slain (dunlendings, haradrim, etc). They are not marked with “totally evil devils” mark, as orks are. And the war of Men against Men is considered by “good characters” as sad thing:

It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace


by MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie
Killing is wrong and no one deserves to die, however in war, all that matters is survival

And I have to disagree with it completely (on my own behalf and on Tolkien’s too). IF all that mattered were survival, Boromir would have been the most positive chap in the hole story. Tolkien’s motto, which shines through all his works, is:

do the right thing, whatever consequences for you personally

If right things implies killing, kill. For what matters is choice, and, as Hama said at Theoden’s door:

Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom

That’s why Beregond kills the doorwarden and is forgiven

killing is wrong but sometimes it's necessary for survival and in war, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right.

sometimes killing is right, and not because of survival, again. As C.S.Lewis once said, “if one committed crime the right Christian behavior would be to give up at the police and be hanged” (not precise wording). But the ruler against which the righteousness of killing is measured is, when no law apply, is again Hama’s statement above, for “even wise can not see all ends”. But when one ponders Gandalf’s words about death, he stresses on safety:

Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, <font color=”red”>fearing for your own safety.

IT does not deal with war and face to face battle, but with sitting somewhere cosily in the armchair dealing out death to someone not even seen

Bill Ferny
There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually <font color=”red”>translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”.

That is what I was driving at in my previous stumbling. Explanation following this paragraph is perfect, upon my word Bill, so I will go on without stopping more on the subject. Or just to sum it up:

One is allowed to kill one’s neighbour once defending whilst assailed but is not allowed to hate. Faramir would not bluff even ork, Gandalf pities Saurons slaves, Frodo is not touching his weapons any more. But that does not mean that because of their pity any of them will surrender and not stand up to forced attack. Left cheek is rather moral issue, than physical

Or, to simplify it even more, one has to be humble in spirit, for anger, which is checked by “left cheek” commandment is the expression of pride. And pride is what led to fall of Melkor, Sauron and Saruman. “Thou shall not kill” is graciously explained by Bill above.

If that's true, life is pointless. There must be a right. And there must be a wrong.

Well, if one is entitled to discuss meaning of life, two things both in Tolkien, and in real life (for some at least) are to be remembered. One of those is already mentioned - “wise can not see all ends”.

Wise can not, but he who holds all ends, all threads of the story in his hand can. That is why Frodo is one chosen, and not by the council of Elrond

Another statement, which is not stated explicitly in Lord of the Rings, but which is implied throughout, is trust, or belief. It is derived naturally form the previous statement. For not seeing all ends, trust one who sees, for he created the world and you for some good end.

HoME X, ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH.

That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir
we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded
deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the
ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but
from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the
Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be
deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves.
This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when
we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for
His Children's joy

I’m approaching the end of my somehow stray discourse now, and hope to get an exact recipe for war or anything else for ME and RL:

three statements to live by for Tolkien, or three quotes summing it all up:


even wise can not see all ends (LoTR)

Implying limited knowledge of creature about itself and other creatures, therefore limiting it’s claim to judge. Thou shall not kill, do not judge and would not thou be judged and so forth is rolled into one here

things might have been different but they could not have been better (Leaf by Niggle)

Trust your creator in any circumstances, for even though you do not know it, al is done for your good

Yet in doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom (LoTR)

In time when choice is to be made, first two principles lead up to third. When you see you do not see something, decide what is to be done according to the measure of your wisdom, and do it, not heeding your own safety, not seeking profit, fighting, if need be.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Ferny
There is an apparent biblical tension between utter pacifism on the one hand and the realities of a fallen human condition on the other. This is seen in the very subtle wording of Exodus, in the Ten Commandments, when the Hebrew word, usually translated as “kill”, is actually a legalistic term that is better translated as “murder”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I was driving at in my previous stumbling.
I've got a bone to pick too, here... Leharog, which is the word you were referring to (in infinitive) can equally be translated as "to kill", or "to murder." It's more or less decided by the context.

Swan song,
~Menelien

[HerenIstarion]

that is why it is said:

that is better translated

Bill haven't said "it definitely means only", and better translated implied "due to context". If all killing were prohibited, why did Christ ordered Roman soldier to serve in the army and perform his duties? For soldier's duties is killing of people. as Saruman puts it, when rebuking Eomer at his door:

"Slay whom your master names as foes"

so your bone is broken in the case smilies/smile.gif

I do not know Hebrew though, so have to rely on your word in the case (which I do gladly).

I have to add though that Georgian transaltion, which dates back as far as IV AD gives word kvla which now may be used for the slain in battle too, but back than beared a meaining of "killing on purpose", which is murder as far as I can see

[Guinevere]

Wow, HerenIstarion, what a great post!
I read this discussion with the greatest interest, but I am no good myself at expressing my thoughts and feelings. I am so muddled...
Yet I will say that I agree with most of what you wrote, i.e. with Tolkiens values.
There is so much timeless truth in his works that appeal to people . He doesn't preach morals, but the "morals " and the religion are absorbed in the story and the symbolism and in that way are "brought home" much more subtly.

Well, my problem is exactly with "choice"! How to trust "one's own wisdom" if I haven't got one? I refer to the quote I made on May 17 from Meneldur's speech: When either way may lead to evil, of what worth is choice? Situations in the world nowadays are mostly so complicated that it is hard to see what is right. smilies/frown.gif
I remember one other letter by Tolkien where he writes about the right and the wrong side in a war, but I just can't find it at the moment..

[ July 19, 2003: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

[Osse]

Reading through these posts i have noticed that many of you have referred to 'hidden meanings' or what Tolkien "meant". Looking for hidden meanings or allegories in Tolkien's work would be to disrespect him. Direct quotes that refer to letters regarding "inner meanings" demonstrate this;

"As for inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorial or topical."

"...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations..."

An author cannot write a book without influencing it personally, and their morals and ideals may sometimes be put into it, but in the case of Tolkien i think this is kept to a bare minimum. He writes history, either true or feigned and the wars written about in the book were in his opinion vittle to the storyline.

[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: Osse ]

[Guinevere]

Well, Ossë, you're of course right, Tolkien did make those statements in his foreword to LotR. (I think mostly because he was enraged because people were drawing all sorts of wrong conclusions)
On the other hand, if you read his letters, things look a bit differently...

e.g. (from letter #181 )
It was written to amuse (in the highest sense): to be readable. (.....)
But , of course, if one sets out to address "adults", they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the "human situation". So some of the tellers own reflections and values will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory"

and in letter #153 he even wrote: I would claim, (...) to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to "bring them home". (btw, there exists a thread on this last quote here in the Downs)

Also, I noticed that in Tolkien's works there are many, many "proverbs" (mostly made up by Tolkien himself) or statements that refer to the situations in the book, but contain at the same time a general and timeless truth. (I've found over 50 til now...)

And I think that Tolkien put very much of himelf in his books (not consciously, of course) because after all:
"It is written in my life-blood, such as that is, thick or thin; and I can no other. (about LotR, from letter 109)

[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

[Imladris]

I just read the entire two pages of this post (!) and my head is swimming. However, I don’t believe it is as off-topic as you all seem to think it is. These are the premises to answer the original question: what were Tolkien’s views on killing. All you have to do is come to a conclusion. Now, as far as I can tell this is a brief summary of the thread: to decide whether this or that is “good” or “right” you must have a standard of codes, either written by a divine being or your own personnel beliefs or convictions. To fully answer the question we need to argue from Tolkien’s viewpoint. We know that Tolkien was a Catholic so of course he believed the first (that the “code” is set by a divine being: God). In ME it was Illuvitar. God/Illuvitar is the king of this world/ME, therefore the people who honor Him as king owe Him full allegiance. Thus when Satan/Morgoth use human means to corrupt this world, we must fight against them as well. When I mean fight, I do not mean war. I mean trying to live by God’s/Illuvitar’s Law and resisting temptation. But when that evil (Satan/Morgoth) starts to physically (war) force you to obey him, then we also need to fight back physically, because if we don’t then we would be submitting to Satan/Morgoth and in essence denying God/Illuvitar as your Lord and King. From what I know of Tolkien, he would have abhorred that. So, in his mind, I think, the war against Sauron was good. As for the Frodo and Gollum (and other such examples) that is more difficult. It is right to kill somebody when that person is trying to kill you: that is self defense. Same thing when someone is trying to kill someone else. When Frodo did not want to kill Saruman, I think it was because Frodo knew that he had no right to say whether Saruman lived or died…that was either for the justice system or for Illuvitar to decide. Yes, Saruman deserved to die: he was a traitor, a murderer and in liege with Sauron. But it was not Frodo’s place. (FYI, when I mention God, I mean the God of the Bible.)

We cannot honestly argue this topic unless we look at it from Tolkien’s point of view. Of course, people will always have questions about his viewpoint and people answer those questions and then there is another argument maybe, but on the whole I think it is safe to say he believed that there was a wrong and right. If you read the books, you can clearly see what he thought about right and wrong, truth and lies, good and bad. We cannot inculcate our beliefs into this argument. If we do we will be arguing based on emotion instead of logic and in the end we’ll run in circles.

So in the end, then, the answer isn’t nearly as complicated as we make it out to be.

[HerenIstarion]

Well put, Imladris and Guinevere.

*H-I bows

And not to let this last post stand as mere statement of approval (e.g expression of personal feelings), I should remind you of Prof Ransom of C.S.Lewis (by assumption, both JRRT and CSL shared some believes). I refer to the second book of his space trilogy, when Ransom realizes that there is no other way but to fight the tempter (I can not give you the direct quote right away, add up one who remembers). There is a same principle (I believe) at work here. One can not fight back evil using the formula "I will resist evil unless". There is no place for such an "unless" with Tolkien (except that means of fighting have to be lawful - i.e. one can not use ring, enemy's weapon, but one can slay orks, as automata in Enemy's service, and one can slay in defence against assail)

[Guinevere]

At last I have found the letter I had in mind: it's #183, written 1956.
The quotation is very lengthy, but as it is exactly about what we have been discussing here, I think I'm justified in posting it here: Of course in "real life" causes are not clear cut- if only because human tyrants are seldom utterly corrupted into pure manifestations of evil will. As far as I can judge some seem to have been so corrupt, but even they must rule subjects only part of whom are equally corrupt, while many still need to have "good motives", real or feigned, presented to them. As we see today. Still there are clear cases: e.g. acts of sheer cruel aggression, in which therefore RIGHT is from the beginning wholly on one side, whatever evil the resentful suffering of evil may eventually generate in members of the right side. There are also conflicts about important things or ideas. In such cases I am more impressed by the extreme importance of being on the right side, than I am disturbed by the revelation of the jungle of confused motives, private purposes, and individual actions (noble or base) in which the RIGT and the WRONG in actual human conflicts are commonly involved. If the conflict really is about things properly called RIGHT and WRONG, or GOOD an EVIL, then the rightness or goodness of one side is not proved or established by the claims of either side; it must depend on values and beliefs above and independent of the particular conflict. A judge must assign RIGHT and WRONG according to principles which he holds valid in all cases. That being so, the RIGHT will remain an inalienable possession of the right side and justify its cause throughout.
(I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the cause will not justify the actions or its supporters, as individuals, that are morally wicked. But though "propaganda" may seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact "right", that is not valid.The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)
Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to the other side.

[Legolas Greenleaf]

This is my first post and I'm ecstatic to find an educated message board aon all these topics. I noticed womeone said it was incorrect to search for hidden meanings in Tolkien adn then quoted that phrase regarding allegory from one of his letters. He went on to say that he felt applicability was amore valid end than allegory so in that sense I think its legitimate to search for the applicability. Inorder to do that we need to uncover many of the "truths" of human nature in middle earth that apply to our world i.e. mercy, justice et al.

Regarding war and death, these cultures, specifically that of the Rohirrim, saw great honor in battle. But it always seems in the context of defense. I mean we can agree that great lengths were gone to by Tolkien to illustrate that even the felling of a tree unnecessarily is immoral. But I still feel that he admired the warrior spirit, not interms of domination, but in protection and freedom.

[Legolas Greenleaf]

Sorry for the typo's guys. I'll be more careful from now on.

[Lord of Angmar]

You can edit your posts for spelling by clicking on the mallet superimposed on a sheet of paper on the top left of every post you make.

Welcome to the Downs! smilies/tongue.gif smilies/wink.gif You seem like you'll fit right in. Very insightful first post.

I agree with you, and as I have said often, while Professor Tolkien may have disliked allegory, there are nonetheless messages and values that reflect on his own ideals in all of his works, and there are plenty of hidden "meanings" and parallels in his works, which are all open to debate in the Downs. smilies/biggrin.gif