[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I am amazed that my somewhat "off the cuff" comment has caused such debate. But, I stand by what I said and therefore feel beholden to defend it (even though I would very much like to believe that I am wrong on this one).

My original point was an observation that, while Tolkien clearly adhered to the Platonic view that:

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness

... it does not reflect the realities of life. I therefore concluded that Plato's analysis cannot form the basis of a sound philosophy.

First, to address Tolkien's view on this, the following comments by mark12_30 and the Lord of Angmar are pertinent:

We will answer for our actions. Tolkien certainly believed this, although he was also conscious of mercy and grace. (mark12_30)

JRR Tolkien ... believed ... that immoral actions have, in essence, a bad aftertaste. (Lord of Angmar)

Precisely. As I said in my original post on this particular subject, I cannot think of one "bad guy" in Tolkien's works who does not get his or her "come uppance", either physically or spiritually (or, more often than not, both). Lord of Angmar cites a prime example: Turin Turambar. Not a "bad guy" per se but, whether through the curse of Morgoth or bad (moral) judgment on his part, he acts immorally (sometimes) and unwisely (often), and is he is punished in his life both spiritually (he certainly did not have a happy life) and, ultimately, physically (in the act of taking his own life) as a result.

Mister Underhill wrote:

People seem to respond to the principle in a general way in art and entertainment.

Well not always (good art does not always punish the wrongdoer) but, as a general rule, yes. Since the majority of us adhere to moral norms (of which more later), we respond better to art which punishes those which refuse to adhere to them. Tolkien is squarely within this tradition, since he makes sure that his immoral characters (even those, such as Boromir and Denethor, who are noble characters seduced into acting wrongly) receive punishment in some way for their wrongful deeds. Even Frodo, for all the bravery and herosim that he displays, does not escape the consequences of his final temptation.

However, much as this might offer us some comfort when neatly packaged as a work of fiction or as a philosophy, it does not reflect reality.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here, Sauce. (Mr U)

Well, in response to this, let me first say that I endorse everything that Aiwendil and Mhoram have posted. And also, to clear another point up at this stage, Underhillo posted:

I suppose I’m sort of shocked to find so many people willing to argue that a life of amorality can be just as fulfilling and happy as a life of virtue

Well, while I do believe that such a life can be just as fulfilling and happy (as I will explain), I don't, of course, believe that to be a desirable state of affairs. It should not be so, but I believe that unfortunately, it is.

In mounting a defence of my position, I feel that it is first necessary to explore (tentatively) why we (society as a whole) act morally.

To simplify things, mankind condensed "what felt right" into a code of laws or morals, that we continue to follow today. (Finwe)

That is exactly what I think: we consider things immoral because they lead to unhappiness, a feeling of taintedness, a feeling of being at odds with one's inner-self, and, in extreme cases suicidal/homicidal tendencies. (Lord of Angmar)

Well, I think that this is putting the cart before the horses. I don't think that moral action evolved because it makes us feel better. Rather, I think that moral action makes us feel better because that is the way that society has evolved. Finwe went on to say:

It generally makes for a much happier society.

And I think that this is much closer to the truth. We act morally, because society works better that way. As mankind developed, it found that coming together in groups afforded a better chance of survival. Mankind flourished by coming together in a society. And, as it coalesced into societies, it discovered that there were certain ways of behaving that enhanced those societies and other ways of behaving that did not. So, society developed "moral norms": ways of behaving that allowed societies to flourish. Murder, assault, theft etc were not conducive to the furtherance of society, and were therefore branded as immoral. And because it has become ingrained in us that we should act in a certain way for the benefit of society, acting that way makes us (or at least the majority of us) feel better in ourselves. There are grey areas, of course, but there are also instances of clear immoral behaviour, such as murder for pure personal gain.

So why do people act immorally? Well, broadly, I can perceive three general bases for immoral behaviour. First, there are those who (whether through their upbringing or by reason of biological abnormality, or perhaps both) simply do not respect moral boundaries. These are the psychopaths and paedophiles whose behaviour I cannot begin to understand. Secondly, there are those who act immorally because they truly believe that it is in the wider interests of society to do so. These are the Machiavellians that Mhoram referred to, and this category would probably include the likes of Hitler and Osama bin Laden. These people really believe that what they are doing is right, however misguided they might be. And finally, there are those who act immorally because they perceive a personal gain in doing so which outweighs the risk of behaving contrary to the moral norms that I mentioned earlier (and therefore, frequently, contrary to the law). Examples of those falling in this category would range from drug barons and mafia bosses down to burglars and shoplifters. There is, of course, much overlap between these groups. So, someone with a psychological imbalance or a poor upbringing which causes them to respect moral boundaries less is more likely to perpetrate immoral acts in the "common good" (Stalin) or simply turn to a life of crime. And the converse is true, so that much of society (most of it, I would hope) is able to act morally even when they perceive that it might be in their personal interests to act immorally.

So, to the question - does acting immorally necessarily lead to a life of unhappiness? As Mr U asked:

Certainly there are numerous examples of people who have reaped all the material, outward “rewards” of their immorality, but do they have fulfilling relationships, clear consciences, peace of mind?

Well, unfortunately I think that some of them do, Mr U. Not all of them admittedly. Those who act contrary to society's moral norms run a greater risk being caught and physically punished. And I am sure that their chances of living a happy and fulfilling life are lessened, if for no other reason than, by virtue of their chosen lifestyle, their relationships (and quite possibly their freedom) will be limited.

But Aiwendil made an extremely good point when she said that:

A view like this rests upon the claim that all immoral people are unhappy; in fact, in order for it to be the basis of any kind of moral philosophy, it would need the claim that all people are unhappy to the degree that they are immoral.

I simply (albeit reluctantly) cannot believe that every immoral person will inevitably live a life of unfulfillment and unhappiness. What about the serial killer who murders with impunity and without regard to moral values, but who is never caught? What about the brutal dictator who is able to live a privileged life without ever being challenged? What about the powerful drugs baron who is beyond the reach of the law? Although I do so with a heavy heart, I cannot but conclude that there are such individuals that do lead their lives happily and (on their terms) with a clear conscience. Their conscience is clear because they have no regard for moral boundaries and/or because their own interests are furthered by what they are doing and/or because they truly believe that what they are doing is for the greater good.

Obviously I’m not in a position to know the secret thoughts and hearts of the six or seven billion people on the planet, so there’s no way for me to mount a logically unassailable defense of this position. (Mister Underhill)

Perhaps this is the nub of it. Even if you were to know their secret thoughts, you would not understand them because their idea of happiness and fulfillment is different from yours and mine. A drug baron is happy and fulfilled because he has enriched himself beyond measure, and that means more to him than any kind of fulfillment that moral action might bring. The Machiavellian Prince is happy because he is secure in the knowledge that his actions are for the greater good of society. Place you or I in those positions and we would find ourselves with inner turmoil, not inner peace. But they don't bother themselves with such qualms.

I believe that those who reject virtue can obtain fulfillment through immorality, but their fulfillment will be less deep and shorter lived. And even if their happiness lasts until their Earthly death, they will pay dearly for their choice in eternity. (the phantom)

Their fulfillment might well be more short lived (the risk of being caught or ousted in a coup d'etat), but is it really less deep? We would like to think so, but they would not, so does it really make any difference? If they believe themselves to be happy, and don't get caught, then they are not really suffering inwardly.

Will they pay for their choice eternally, in the afterlife? Well, I would like to think so, but my faith is not strong so I am afraid that I cannot be sure on that one.

Wow, making that post has really quite depressed me. But that's reality for you. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Edit: Sharkû, you are cynical (sorry, couldn't resist it). [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

While I did study a bit of philosophy at university, my detailed knowledge of the concepts is long gone. But I did manage a bit of Tolkien-related comment at the beginning of my post. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 24, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]